The fate of Pennsylvania's controversial zoning provisions of Act 13, the 2012 amendment to the Oil and Gas Act, will soon be decided by the Supreme Court in Robinson Township v. Commonwealth. At stake are provisions that would require municipalities to eliminate most restrictions on unconventional gas well development from local zoning ordinances. As one might expect from a state that has become a leader in modern oil and gas development, the provisions at issue expressly seek to provide a one-size-fits-all approach to local control of oil and gas development. This effort at uniformity has been met with stiff opposition from municipalities that believe Act 13 goes too far, usurping a local government's traditional role of regulating land use within its borders for the health and safety of its residents. So far, the plaintiff municipalities have had the better of the argument, challenging Act 13 on constitutional grounds, in contrast to a nationwide trend that has seen state courts relying on state/local conflict pre-emption doctrine to limit local efforts to regulate oil and gas development.
The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court declared the Pennsylvania provisions unconstitutional and void in July 2012, and based on earlier Supreme Court decisions on the topic, there is reason to expect that the state's highest court may uphold that decision. This outcome would restore municipalities' authority to enact zoning ordinances limiting, at a minimum, the location of oil and gas drilling activities within the municipality — authority recognized by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court itself in 2009 in Huntley & Huntley v. Borough Council of Borough of Oakmont, 964 A.2d 855 (Pa. 2009).
