Attorney for PUC says "small cadre" trying to kill gas industry

• Susan Phillips
  BioRecent Stories

  

  Susan Phillips tells stories about the consequences of political decisions on people's every day lives. She has worked as a reporter for WHYY since 2004. Susan's coverage of the 2008 Presidential election resulted in a story on the front page of the New York Times. In 2010 she traveled to Haiti to cover the earthquake. That same year she produced an award-winning series on Pennsylvania's natural gas rush called "The Shale Game." She received a 2013 Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Journalism Award for her work covering natural gas drilling in Pennsylvania. She has also won several Edward R. Murrow awards for her work with StateImpact. In 2013/14 she spent a year at MIT as a Knight Science Journalism Fellow. She has also been a Metcalf Fellow, an MBL Logan Science Journalism Fellow and reported from Marrakech on the 2016 climate talks as an International Reporting Project Fellow. A graduate of Columbia School of Journalism, she earned her Bachelor's degree in International Relations from George Washington University.

AP Photo

In this file photo, attorney Matt Haverstick (Right) seen here with Eric Arneson(L), from the office of open records in Harrisburg. Haverstick represented the PUC in the Robinson Township case. He said there was a "small cadre trying to kill" the gas industry.

Haverstick, a partner at Kleinbard LLC, said through an email that the “small cadre” did not refer to the Supreme Court, but would not elaborate on who or what the phrase did refer to, and did not return calls seeking clarification. Haverstick has also served as an attorney for Senate Republican Caucus and his firm biography says one of his legal specialties is public corruption. His comment has raised concerns among advocates who say it illustrates a bias on the part of the PUC.
Alex Bomstein is an attorney with the Clean Air Council, which is challenging Sunoco Logistic’s eminent domain authority in constructing the Mariner East 2 pipeline. Sunoco gained its eminent domain authority from the PUC.
“The way he characterized it definitely made it seem like the PUC is more concerned with benefiting the gas industry rather than protecting Pennsylvania consumers,” said Bomstein. “Their job is to make sure utilities are fairly run and operated, and don’t discriminate against people or charge unfair rates.”
Lynda Farrell, with the Pipeline Safety Coalition, agreed.
“I could see this (comment) coming from the natural gas industry,” said Farrell. “But the PUC is the entity that grants Sunoco and other [pipelines] eminent domain,” she said. “It’s a very biased statement in favor of the industry, and does not respect the Supreme Court and the constitution.”
The PUC would not respond to questions about the comment or their role with the state’s natural gas industry.
The agency was a party to the lawsuit because it was designated by the legislature in Act 13 to review local zoning ordinances and determine whether they violated the law. Act 13 stripped local municipalities of their authority to determine the location of gas production. When the Supreme Court ruled that aspect of the law unconstitutional in 2013, it did not address the role of the PUC. The PUC’s status became an unresolved issue litigated through the lower courts, and the PUC was obligated to defend itself.
In July 2014, the Commonwealth Court ruled that given the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the local zoning preemption in Act 13, it made no sense to have challenges to local oil and gas zoning ordinances bypass the traditional appeals process, and go directly to either the PUC or the Commonwealth Court. That decision effectively removed the PUC from the new role created for the agency by Act 13.
But the law had also given the PUC and the Commonwealth Court power to withhold a municipality’s share of the Marcellus Shale impact fee if a local ordinance was found to be in violation of the law.
At oral arguments before the Supreme Court in March, Haverstick argued that the agency should continue to maintain authority to withhold impact fee money in cases of local municipalities zoning the “how” of drilling, if not the “where.” He said the impact fee money is “conditional” and the PUC should enforce those conditions. Referring to the local municipalities that brought the suit, Haverstick told the court:
“They want all carrot and no stick.”
In a majority opinion by the court released Wednesday, the PUC was stripped of its role. Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, a spokesperson for the PUC, says the agency is still reviewing the decision and has no official comment.
John Dernbach, an environmental law professor at Widener University, says although both the 2013 Supreme Court decision, and Wednesday’s ruling, were a win for local governments, it should be taken in context. “The two Supreme Court decisions taken together invalidate or enjoin only a small part of Act 13 and the rest of Act 13 is still there,” he said. “To read this opinion as a sweeping attack on shale gas is to seriously misread what the court did.”

*A photo caption in this story has been corrected to reflect that Haverstick did not represent Eric Arneson, he represented the Senate Republican Caucus.

Editor's Picks

---

About StateImpact Pennsylvania

StateImpact Pennsylvania is a collaboration among WITF, WHYY, and the Allegheny Front. Reporters Reid Frazier, Rachel McDevitt and Susan Phillips cover the commonwealth’s energy economy. Read their reports on this site, and hear them on public radio stations across Pennsylvania.

PARTNERS

FUNDERS

Climate Solutions partners

---

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy