Articles, Alerts & Perspectives

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

The Authority

(by Michael Korns and Amanda Brosy)

Municipal authorities and other public entities in Pennsylvania have long been familiar with the weight and burden of DEP and EPA mandates and regulations.  Whether it involves issues with stormwater infiltration, erosion and sediment control, or any number of issues related to water treatment, all too often authorities must correct issues that they did not cause.  Given that history, authorities should brace themselves, because new regulations will put them in the crosshairs again.

PFAS – A pollutant that means forever.

The new issue facing authorities relates to a large group of man-made chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or “PFAS” for short.  PFAS are resistant to heat, oils, stains, and water, and for that reason, PFAS have been incorporated into a wide variety of consumer products and industrial processes since the 1940s.  They are ubiquitous in the environment and are known as “forever chemicals” because they do not readily break down in nature.  Ongoing research shows a variety of potential health risks related to PFAS exposures.

Pennsylvania has adopted PFAS standards related to drinking water and environmental cleanup, and  EPA, which is working to address PFAS pollution on multiple regulatory fronts, recently finalized the first-ever national drinking water standard related to PFAS. In December 2023, DEP also updated its NPDES Individual Industrial Wastewater permit application to include PFAS sampling. Applications going forward are required to include sampling for four PFAS: PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, and HFPO-DA (commonly referred to as GenX) as part of Pollutant Group 1 sampling.  Because sampling is required under Pollutant Group 1, all industrial categories are subject to the sampling requirements.

The heart of the issue for authorities is this: the elimination of PFAS in drinking water is a regulatory priority for both EPA and DEP.  …

Charleston, WV

The Wildcatter

(by Nikolas Tysiak)

A few cases to report on this month.

Griffin v. Toland, 2024 WL 2269941 (W. Va. S. Ct. May 20, 2024). In a memorandum decision (i.e. – without oral arguments), the West Virginia Supreme Court sought to interpret intentions of the parties to a 1976 deed containing oil and gas reservation language. Hazel L. White acquired all the surface and ½ the oil and gas under a tract of 82 acres during her lifetime, one-half the oil and gas having been properly and effectively reserved by a predecessor in title pursuant to a 1943 deed. By deed dated June 29, 1976, Hazel White conveyed the 82 acres to Timmie and Vickie McMillan, with an exception of ½ the oil and gas. The exception language in the June 29, 1976 was reportedly identical to the reservation language used by Hazel White’s predecessor in title to retain the “other” ½ of the oil and gas via the 1943 deed. The 82 acres was purportedly conveyed multiple times following the June 29, 1976 deed, all containing language nearly identical to both the 1943 deed and the June 29, 1976 deed. Griffin, as successor to Hazel White, filed a declaratory judgment action claiming rightful ownership of the ½ oil and gas interest purportedly reserved under the June 29, 1976 deed, as against the current surface owners (Toland). The trial court found in favor of Toland, stating that the June 29, 1976 deed was ambiguous as to Hazel White’s intent – the language does not indicate whether Hazel indicated to retain the “remaining” one half of the oil and gas associated with the 82 acres, ½ of the ½ interest, or none of the oil and gas. …

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

The Foundation Water Law Newsletter

(by Lisa M. Bruderly, Mackenzie M. Moyer and Jessica Deyoe)

On March 9, 2024, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) announced the availability of its draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activities (draft 2024 General Permit), which would apply to eligible projects proposing earth disturbance greater than or equal to one acre. See 54 Pa. Bull. 1263 (Mar. 9, 2024). PADEP accepted comments on the draft through April 8, 2024. PADEP’s draft 2024 General Permit includes significant changes compared to the PAG-02 General Permit currently in effect, set to expire on December 7, 2024 (2019 General Permit). To supplement these changes, PADEP is expected to update the Erosion and Sediment Module 1 and Post-Construction Stormwater Management (PCSM) Module 2 to be consistent with the draft 2024 General Permit upon reissuance.

The 2019 General Permit requires that proof of the recording of an instrument for post-construction stormwater management (PCSM) best management practices (BMPs), now referred to as stormwater control measures (SCMs), be submitted to PADEP or the County Conservation District (CCD) with the Notice of Termination (NOT) or a Transfer Application. The draft 2024 General Permit would require submission of the full recording and proof of the recording to PADEP before a pre-construction meeting is scheduled, as well as upon the submission of the NOT to ensure compliance. The draft 2024 General Permit would also require the use of a standard form to document the completion of each structural PCSM SCM, which must be signed by a licensed professional and submitted to PADEP or CCD within 30 days of completion of each SCM. …

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

The Foundation Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

(Joseph K. Reinhart, Sean M. McGovern, Gina F. Buchman, Matthew C. Wood)

On January 26, 2024, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) announced that it would implement a policy requiring natural gas well operators to disclose chemicals they use in drilling and hydraulic fracturing operations before the chemicals are used on-site. See Press Release, PADEP, “Shapiro Administration, DEP Requires All Fracking Companies to Be More Transparent About Chemicals Used in Drilling” (Jan. 26, 2024). To accomplish this, PADEP said it would revise the process by which an operator submits its site-specific preparedness, prevention, and contingency plan (PPC Plan). Regulations require that an operator prepare a PPC Plan before it stores, uses, or generates regulated substances on-site, but until this change, an operator was only required to submit its PPC Plan to PADEP upon request.

Now, PADEP’s policy is that operators must submit PPC Plans to the agency prior to conducting drilling operations so PADEP can post them online on its PA Oil and Gas Mapping website. PADEP has informed operators and industry groups of the change, and since January 3, 2024, has included the policy in cover letters attached to issued unconventional well permits. This change appears to respond to one of eight recommendations summarized in the report prepared by Pennsylvania’s 43rd Statewide Investigating Grand Jury on the unconventional oil and gas industry. See Office of the Att’y Gen., Commw. of Pa., Report 1 of the Forty-Third Statewide Investigating Grand Jury (June 2020). The grand jury was convened, and the PPC Plan policy subsequently implemented, under then-Attorney General and current Governor Josh Shapiro. …

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

The Foundation Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Mining

(Joseph K. Reinhart, Sean M. McGovern, Gina F. Buchman, Christina M. Puhnaty)

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro recently announced two pieces of legislation as part of his “commonsense energy plan” that would replace state efforts to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI): (1) the Pennsylvania Climate Emissions Reduction Act (PACER) and (2) the Pennsylvania Reliable Energy Sustainability Standard (PRESS). Press Release, Gov’r Josh Shapiro, “Governor Josh Shapiro’s Energy Plan Builds on Pennsylvania’s Legacy of Energy Leadership by Protecting and Creating Energy Jobs and Lowering Electricity Costs for Consumers” (Mar. 13, 2024). According to the Shapiro administration, these Pennsylvania-specific programs are aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, lowering utility bills for consumers, and creating and protecting jobs in the Commonwealth.

PACER was introduced as House Bill 2275 by Representative Aerion Abney and as Senate Bill 1191 by Senator Carolyn Comitta on May 8, 2024, along with many cosponsors. The legislation proposes to establish a Pennsylvania-run CO2 Budget Trading Program with its own auction of CO2 allowances. The bill directs the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to administer this program in accordance with parts of the regulation promulgated to implement the commonwealth’s participation in RGGI, 25 Pa. Code ch. 145, subch. E (CO2 Budget Trading Program), with some changes. “Budget sources”—fossil fuel-fired electricity generators with a nameplate capacity of 25 MW or more—would be required to comply with the program under PACER and purchase allowances (authorization to emit one ton of VOCs) equal to the tons of CO2 emitted annually.

The legislation also directs PADEP to review the base budget—the number of allowances available for auction set in the CO2 Budget Trading Program regulation—and consider the impact of the budget on jobs, consumers, and the environment to determine whether revisions to the budget are necessary. …

Pittsburgh, PA

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Alex Farone)

On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted 3-2 to publish its proposed final rule banning most noncompetition agreements, or “non-competes.” The final rule was published on May 7, 2024, in the Federal Register and therefore becomes effective 120 days later, on September 4, 2024, but legal challenges to the FTC’s authority to issue this ban will likely result in a stay in enforcement of the ban until litigation is resolved.

As of the effective date, the final rule would ban new non-competes with employees, independent contractors, and volunteers nationwide, on the basis that non-competes are an unfair method of competition and therefore a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, with one exception. The ban will not apply to a non-compete that is entered into pursuant to the bona fide sale of a business, the persona’s ownership interest in a business entity, or all (or substantially all) of a business entity’s operating assets.

The final rule will also void pre-existing non-competes, with two exceptions. First, existing non-competes for senior executives will remain enforceable after the effective date of the final rule. A “senior executive” is defined as a worker earning more than $151,164 annually who is in a policy-making position, meaning a company president, chief executive officer or equivalent, or any other person who has final authority to make policy decisions that control significant aspects of a business entity. Second, the ban will not apply to an existing non-compete that has been breached and where a cause of action accrued prior to the effective date.

The final rule will also require employers to provide “clear and conspicuous notice” to all workers, other than senior executives, with existing non-competes by the effective date stating that the non-compete will not be, and cannot legally be, enforced. …

Pittsburgh, PA

TEQ Hub

(by Alex Farone)

On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted 3-2 to publish its proposed final rule banning most noncompetition agreements, or “non-competes.” The final rule was published on May 7, 2024 in the Federal Register and becomes effective on September 4, 2024, but legal challenges to the FTC’s authority to issue this ban will likely result in a stay in enforcement of the ban until litigation is resolved.

As of the effective date, the final rule would ban new non-competes with employees, independent contractors, and volunteers nationwide, on the basis that non-competes are an unfair method of competition and therefore a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, with one exception. The ban will not apply to a non-compete that is entered into pursuant to a bona fide sale of a business entity, the persona’s ownership interest in a business entity, or all or substantially all of a business entity’s operating assets.

The final rule will also void pre-existing non-competes, with two exceptions. First, existing non-competes for senior executives will remain enforceable after the effective date of the final rule. A “senior executive” is defined as a worker earning more than $151,164 annually who is in a policy-making position, meaning a company president, chief executive officer or equivalent, or any other person who has final authority to make policy decisions that control significant aspects of a business entity. Second, the ban will not apply where an existing non-compete has been breached and a cause of action accrued prior to the effective date.

The final rule will additionally require employers to provide “clear and conspicuous notice” to all workers, other than senior executives, with existing non-competes by the effective date stating that the non-compete will not be, and cannot legally be, enforced. …

Pittsburgh, PA

TRIBLive

(by Justin Vellucci)

For Tim Novosel, Brazilian jiu jitsu is more about control than contact.

The Pittsburgh police commander — who launched a jiu jitsu training program for city cops about two years ago — talked about the importance the martial art places on focus instead of force. Nearby, a dozen officers grappled nearby on an ocean of blue mats in Pittsburgh police’s North Side training academy.

The officers’ limbs — each cloaked in a navy-blue gi, a robe-style top that’s part of jiu-jitsu’s uniform — furled around each other trying to gain an upper hand. Trainers in black gi leaned in periodically to help officers with dominant positions or demonstrate how to master moves like the Triangle Choke.

“It’s like human chess, it’s such a thinking man’s sport,” said Novosel, 51, a North Side native who took over leadership in February of Pittsburgh’s Zone 2 station, which covers Downtown. “You’re always examining the body and seeing how you can fit.”

“I’m passionate about it because it you came and told me, ‘Patrol over there,’ I’d rather go out without my gun than without my jiu jitsu,” he added. “It’s another tool on your belt.”

A couple of generations ago — long before Novosel joined the Pittsburgh force in 2007 — cops trained by boxing, the commander told TribLive.

Today, he said, Pittsburgh police integrate Brazilian jiu jitsu into teaching recruits the bureau’s defensive tactics — and keeping more tenured officers fit and focused.

About 120 officers — three of them women — have taken part in the bureau’s voluntary jiu jitsu training, with 50 coming to sessions regularly. …

Harrisburg, PA

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Casey Alan Coyle and Michael Libuser)

Online gaming is a booming industry.  In fiscal year 2022–23, the Pennsylvania Lottery’s iLottery program generated $872.5 million in eInstant sales, while online gambling revenues topped $2 billion in Pennsylvania last year according to published reports.  But behind the scenes, a dispute has arisen that pits the Pennsylvania Lottery against privately owned casinos.  The fight is over legislation that prohibits the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue (the “Department”), the administrator of the Lottery, from offering products that “simulate casino-style lottery games” as part of the iLottery program.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently construed the meaning of that phrase in Greenwood Gaming & Entertainment, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 306 A.3d 319 (Pa. 2023), and remanded the case to the Commonwealth Court with instructions to apply a corresponding standard.  The question now is whether, and to what extent, the Commonwealth Court will be able to establish a boundary between iLottery games and the online products offered by casinos.

Act 42

On March 15, 1972, the Pennsylvania Lottery sold its first ticket for a weekly drawing.  The Lottery, then only a year into its existence, operated without competition and continued to do so for decades.  Over the years, with the rising popularity of Lottery games, including now-ubiquitous “scratch-offs,” came a tide of competition and technology that shepherded in a new legislative era for Pennsylvania gambling rules.  First came the Race Horse Development and Gaming Act (the “Gaming Act”), which authorized slot machines.  Six years later, the Legislature expanded the Gaming Act to include table games.  Then, in 2014, the General Assembly amended the State Lottery Law (the “Lottery Law”) to prohibit the Department from offering “[i]nternet instant game[s]” and “simulated casino-style lottery game[s]” through the Lottery, absent further legislative authorization. …