Articles, Alerts & Perspectives

Pittsburgh, PA, Charleston, WV, and Washington, DC

Babst Calland has been recognized in the 2026 edition of Best Law Firms®, ranked by Best Lawyers®, nationally in 8 practice areas and regionally in 41 practice areas:

• National Tier 2
  • Energy Law
  • Environmental Law
  • Land Use and Zoning Law
  • Litigation – Construction
  • Litigation – Environmental
  • Mining Law
• National Tier 3
  • Natural Resources Law
  • Oil and Gas Law
• Regional Tier 1
  • Pittsburgh
    • Bet-the-Company Litigation
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Construction Law
    • Corporate Law
    • Energy Law
    • Energy Regulatory Law
    • Environmental Law
    • Land Use and Zoning Law
    • Litigation – Construction
    • Litigation – Environmental
    • Litigation – Land Use and Zoning
    • Mediation
    • Municipal Law
    • Natural Resources Law
    • Water Law
  • Charleston-WV
    • Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships)
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Energy Law
    • Environmental Law
    • Litigation – Environmental
    • Oil and Gas Law
• Regional Tier 2
  • Pittsburgh
    • Information Technology Law
    • Real Estate Law
  • Charleston-WV
    • Arbitration
    • Banking and Finance Law
    • Commercial Transactions / UCC Law
    • Corporate Law
    • Mining Law
    • Natural Resources Law
  • Washington, D.C.
    • Energy Law
    • Environmental Law
    • Litigation – Environmental
• Regional Tier 3
  • Pittsburgh
    • Labor Law –

…

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

The Foundation Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

(by Lisa Bruderly, Mackenzie Moyer and Ethan Johnson)

On August 21, 2025, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) announced that companies may now request expedited permit application reviews under the Streamlining Permits for Economic Expansion and Development (SPEED) program. DEP likened the new program to an amusement park “fast pass.” Eligible permit types for the SPEED program include:

• Air Quality plan approvals (state only) (Chapter 127)
• Earth Disturbance permits (Chapter 102)
  • Individual NPDES Permit
  • General NPDES Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Small Construction Activities (PAG-01)
  • General NPDES Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activities (PAG-02)
  • Erosion and Sediment Control Permit
  • Erosion and Sediment Control General Permit for Earth Disturbance Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration, Production, Processing or Treatment Operations or Transmission Lines (ESCGP-4)
• Individual Water Obstruction and Encroachment permits for project impacts eligible for coverage under the federal/state programmatic permit (PASPGP-6 or its successor) (Chapter 105)
• Dam Safety Permits (Chapter 105)

After submitting a SPEED intake form, the appropriate office will schedule and hold an intake meeting with the applicant within two to three business days.

The applicant will then have the opportunity to select a DEP-approved qualified professional to conduct the expedited review of the application. Among other qualifications, the professional must have at least five years of relevant permitting experience in Pennsylvania. The applicant must pay the qualified professional the review fee up front. …

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

The Foundation Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

(by Lisa Bruderly, Mackenzie Moyer and Ethan Johnson)

On September 6, 2025, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) published the Proposed Conditional State Water Quality Certification for the PASPGP-7 (SWQC), 55 Pa. Bull. 6477 (Sept. 6, 2025). The proposed conditional SWQC is for applicants seeking coverage under PASPGP-7 (the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Pennsylvania State Programmatic General Permit) for projects that do not require a federal license or permit other than a section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Comments on the SWQC were due by October 6, 2025.

DEP offered four main conditions, summarized below, that, if fulfilled, would demonstrate that a proposed activity under PASPGP-7 would comply with state water quality standards and certain provisions of the CWA:

1. Prior to beginning any activity authorized by the Corps under PASPGP-7, the applicant must obtain all necessary environmental permits or approvals and submit all required environmental assessments and other information necessary to obtain the permits and approvals.
2. The applicant must comply with required environmental assessments and other regulatory requirements.
3. Fill material may not contain any type of waste as defined in 35 Pa. Stat. § 6018.103 of the Solid Waste Management Act.
4. Applicants and projects eligible for the PASPGP-7 must obtain all state permits or approvals, or both, necessary to ensure that the project meets the state’s applicable water quality standards, including a project-specific SWQC, if needed.

As background, PASPGP-7 allows applicants to obtain both Corps section 404 permits and coverage under DEP permits or other authorizations for water obstructions and encroachments submitted to the DEP and for projects requiring permits or authorizations in this Commonwealth. …

Pittsburgh, PA

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Steve Korbel, Anna Hosack and Peter Zittel)

Social media has become the modern town square for many public officials.  Whether it’s sharing a recap of a school board meeting, celebrating a community event, or commenting on local issues, platforms like Facebook and Instagram are now a routine part of how leaders connect with their constituents.  But what happens when those online conversations intersect with Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law, 65 P.S. § 67.101, et seq. (the “RTKL”)?  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered this question recently in Penncrest School District v. Cagle, 341 A.3d 720 (Pa. 2025), a case that sheds new light on how personal social media use by public officials can blur into the purview of the RTKL.

In May 2021, controversy arose in the Penncrest School District (“Penncrest”) after a high school library display included several books addressing LGBTQ+ issues.  A third-party contractor photographed the display and posted it to Facebook, where a school board member shared the image on his personal account, adding comments denouncing the display as “evil” and suggesting he would raise the issue at a future school board meeting.  Another board member also shared the post without commentary.  The incident drew local media coverage, and a resident, Thomas Cagle, filed a request under the RTKL seeking school board members’ emails and social media posts related to the incident.  While Penncrest released some district emails, it denied the request for board members’ social media posts, arguing that such content came from personal accounts.  Cagle appealed to the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records, which granted his request, reasoning that the board members’ posts directly related to district business, citing prior cases that emphasized substance over account ownership. …

Pittsburgh, PA

TEQ Hub

(by Kristen Petrina)

Due to the lack of a United States national data privacy law, the EU-U.S. have attempted to create a legal framework that permits a streamlined, regulated, and sufficient data transfer framework. Since 2015, three different data transfer agreements between the European Union and the United States were introduced. All three have faced challenges due to concerns the data transfer agreements did not provide adequate protections for EU citizens’ data from U.S. government surveillance.

The first data transfer agreement implemented but was found to be inadequate and invalidated in 2015 by the EU’s Court of Justice was the EU-U.S. Safe Harbor framework, which was deemed insufficient for protecting EU citizens’ personal data and fundamental rights, particularly in light of revelations about U.S. surveillance programs. The second data transfer agreement implemented but ultimately found to be inadequate and invalidated in 2020 by the EU’s Court of Justice was the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework, which was deemed to not offer the same level of protection as the GDPR. In particular, the framework did not adequately protect EU citizens’ data from U.S. government surveillance. The EU-U.S. Safe Harbor and EU-U.S. Privacy Shield frameworks were challenged by Maximiliam “Max” Schrems and his data privacy rights organization NOYB – European Center for Digital Rights (NOYB). The challenges are referenced as Schrems I and Schrems II cases, respectively.

The third data transfer agreement implemented was the Data Privacy Framework (DPF). The EU-U.S. DPF was challenged by Latombe citing, among other claims, the U.S. Data Protection Review Court lacked true independence and impartiality, established as a key redress pillar under the DPF, and the sufficiency of safeguards governing bulk data collection by U.S. surveillance and intelligence agencies without prior authorization from EU citizens and lacked adequate oversight. …

Washington, DC and Pittsburgh, PA

PIOGA Press

(by Sloane Wildman and Alex Graf)

On September 17, 2025, EPA announced that it will retain the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) hazardous substance designation for PFOA and PFOS, two PFAS compounds.  The final rule designating PFOA and PFOS (and their salts and structural isomers) as hazardous substances under CERCLA became effective on July 8, 2024.  Substances designated as hazardous under CERCLA are subject to release reporting requirements, specific spill rules, release tracking requirements, and additional reporting mandates under other environmental statutes.  Further, EPA may require potentially responsible parties – PRPs – to clean up or pay for the cleanup of hazardous substances.  In conjunction with EPA’s announcement, the U.S. Department of Justice submitted a filing in Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. EPA, No. 24-1193 (D.C. Cir.) (ongoing litigation, currently in abeyance, challenging the CERCLA designation of PFOA and PFOS), asking the court to lift the abeyance and propose an amended briefing schedule.

Prior to its 2024 PFOA and PFOS designation, EPA’s CERCLA hazardous substance list was comprised solely of substances designated under other environmental statutes (e.g., Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act).  EPA’s 2024 designation of PFOA and PFOS represented the first time the Agency used its authority under CERCLA Section 102(a) to list specific hazardous substances that were not designated under another environmental statute.  In this week’s announcement, EPA stated its intention to initiate a rulemaking to “establish a uniform framework governing designation of hazardous substances under section 102(a) of CERCLA moving forward.”  Such a “Framework Rule” would establish a uniform approach to guide future CERCLA hazardous substance designation, including EPA’s method for considering the costs of proposed designation. …

Pittsburgh, PA

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Steve Antonelli and Alex Farone)

Recent activity from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) indicates yet another shift in the Commission’s view on non-compete agreements, the latest in a turbulent 16-month period for this topic that began with the FTC’s May 2024 publication of a final rule banning most non-competes throughout the country.

The rule was set to take effect 120 days later, on September 4, 2024, and it would have banned the vast majority of new non-competes with employees, independent contractors, and volunteers nationwide, with the exception of those entered into pursuant to certain business sales. The ban was published based on the view of the Commission, which was controlled by a Democratic majority at the time, that non-competes are an unfair method of competition and therefore a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. In addition to the ban, the rule would have required employers to notify impacted workers of their agreements’ unenforceability.

Two weeks before its effective date, on August 20, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas invalidated the ban with its opinion in Ryan LLC, et al. v. Federal Trade Commission. The court ruled that the ban exceeded the FTC’s statutory authority. In doing so, it held that the creation of substantive rules stretched beyond the FTC’s power, and that the ban was unreasonably overbroad. The FTC appealed the court’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The FTC filed its appellate brief in January 2025 but then sought a stay of the appeal in March 2025.

On September 5, 2025, one year and one day after the ban was originally set to take effect, the FTC formally withdrew its appeal of the Ryan decision as well as a similar appeal pending in the 11th Circuit. …

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

PIOGA Press

(by Gary Steinbauer, Gina Buchman, and Christina Puhnaty)

On July 31, 2025, EPA published in the Federal Register its highly anticipated Interim Final Rule to extend several deadlines in 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subparts OOOO, OOOOa, OOOOb and OOOOc that were promulgated in EPA’s 2024 Methane Rule. 90 Fed. Reg. 35966 (July 31, 2025).  That same day, environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the Interim Final Rule. Envtl. Defense Fund v. U.S. EPA, Case #25-1164 (D.C. Cir.). Absent a stay by the court, which the environmental groups are currently not seeking, the Interim Final Rule and the various extended deadlines are effective.

Summary of Deadline Extensions

The Interim Final Rule extends numerous compliance deadlines for oil and gas air emission sources subject to the New Source Performance Standards in 40 C.F.R. Part 60 Subparts OOOO, OOOOa, OOOOb and OOOOc.  The previous compliance deadlines were published in a March 2024 final rule.  89 Fed. Reg. 16820 (March 8, 2024).  The Interim Final Rule, which became effective upon publication, extends many deadlines in OOOOb, the date that the requirements of the Super-Emitter Program apply with respect to OOOO, OOOOa, and OOOOb, and the date by which states must submit plans to EPA pursuant to the OOOOc emissions guidelines.

EPA extended the following OOOOb compliance deadlines to at least January 22, 2027:

• Process Controllers: The date by which process controller affected facilities are required to be zero-bleed devices. 40 CFR §§ 60.5370b(a)(5)(i), 60.5390b(a), 60.5415b(h)(1).

• Storage Vessels:
  • The date by which receiving additional crude oil, condensate, intermediate hydrocarbons, or produced water throughput at tank batteries triggers a modification.

…