Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court’

By Elizabeth Skrapits (Staff Writer)
Published: August 23, 2010

DALLAS TWP. – Would local officials be powerless to stop a natural gas company from drilling a natural gas well in the middle of a housing development?

Not according to a new state court ruling, which affirms the right of municipal and county officials to limit natural gas drilling to certain districts, such as agricultural, mining or manufacturing, and out of residential neighborhoods.

“Gas drilling is here to stay, and it affects the Back Mountain region very extensively.” Attorney Jeffrey Malak told members of the Back Mountain Community Partnership as he outlined the new court decision.

Thousands of acres in the Back Mountain have been leased by natural gas companies, and Encana Oil & Gas USA Inc. is drilling the second of two exploratory natural gas wells in Lake Township.

Traditionally, local officials have limited say when it comes to natural gas drilling. Technical aspects, such as what kind of materials to use and how the well is drilled, are governed by the state Oil and Gas Act. But local officials are gaining more and more say in where wells can be drilled.

Two previous cases, Huntley & Huntley v. Oakmont Borough and Range Resources v. Salem Township (Westmoreland County) set precedents allowing local officials some leeway in regulating where natural gas companies can drill.

A third, Penneco Oil Co. Inc. v. the County of Fayette, decided in Commonwealth Court on July 22, determined the state Oil & Gas Act does not trump local zoning ordinances, and that local officials can take steps to protect the residential character of neighborhoods.

In the case, Penneco, Range Resources Appalachia LLC and the Independent Oil and Gas Association of Pennsylvania took Fayette County Office of Planning, Zoning and Community Development to court, saying they did not have to follow the county’s zoning ordinance because the state Oil and Gas Act made it invalid. The court ruled in favor of the county.

“This opens up the floodgates and says municipal zoning is not pre-empted,” Malak said.

The Penneco case allows that gas wells cannot be located within the flight path of an airport runway; that they must be at least 200 feet from a residential dwelling; and that officials can require fencing and shrubs around the well site. It also allows zoning hearing boards to impose any other provisions to protect the health, safety and welfare of residents.

Whether the Penneco case will be appealed is anybody’s guess, but it’s the law unless the state Supreme Court changes it, Malak said.

Dallas Borough already has some of the provisions in its zoning ordinance, Malak said. In Jackson Township, where he also serves as solicitor, the supervisors will put similar provisions in the zoning ordinance when it is drafted over the next couple of months, Malak said.

Dallas Township Supervisor Chairman Phil Walter asked Malak if there was a way to protect a municipality against fly-by-night operators who will leave when something goes wrong.

The case does allow for bonds, even large ones, to be put in place to protect the health, safety and welfare of residents, Malak said.

Kingston Township Supervisor Jeffrey Box asked if local officials can require a land development plan from natural gas companies. Malak said they could, and they can require special exceptions, meaning there has to be a hearing in front of the zoning hearing board to grant permission and to impose any standard planning and zoning fees.

But, he said, there are still aspects of natural gas drilling that will have to be decided in court, such as whether there can be restrictions on hours drillers can operate and whether they can be barred from using roads at certain times.

eskrapits@citizensvoice.com , 570-821-2072

View article here.

Copyright:  The Citizens Voice

By Laura Legere (Staff Writer)
Published: June 29, 2010

Gas tax law could OK ‘forced pooling’

Firms would drill from nearby site

The Marcellus Shale natural gas industry wants to see legislation attached to any severance tax adopted by the state that would force property owners who refuse leases to allow drillers to gather the gas beneath their land, an industry coalition leader said Monday.

Calling it the most economical and conservative land-use approach to drilling for gas, David Spigelmyer, Chesapeake Energy’s regional vice president for government relations, said in a Times-Tribune editorial board meeting that “forced pooling” is a key element of any legislation the state’s Marcellus drillers could support and is actively being discussed during budget negotiations in the capital.

Mr. Spigelmyer said he does not expect forced pooling to be adopted in the coming days as part of budget talks, but he said “an agreement” likely will emerge with the budget “to talk about (the severance tax) holistically” with other industry-supported legislation on forced pooling.

The Marcellus Shale Coalition, an organization of the state’s Marcellus drillers, “has not said, ‘Hell no’ ” to a severance tax, said Mr. Spigelmyer, the group’s vice chairman. “We’ve said there needs to be a broader discussion.”

A forced pooling statute would require landowners without gas leases to allow a company to drill under their land from a nearby leased property, and it would define the amount of royalties those holdout landowners are owed for their gas.

Eminent domain

Such a statute would help avoid an unnecessary proliferation of wells, Mr. Spigelmyer said, but critics say it is a form of eminent domain.

In May, State Rep. Camille “Bud” George, D-74, Houtzdale, Clearfield County, called it a “controversial, ugly provision” through which “an intrusive government would be depriving an individual’s property rights to benefit private companies.”

Limit zoning laws

As part of severance tax discussions, the industry also wants to limit municipal ordinances that attempt to regulate where gas drilling can occur – a development spurred by a state Supreme Court decision last year that opened the door for municipalities to have some control over where gas wells are located through zoning.

“We’re willing to work with municipalities, but we’re seeing … an extraordinary number of ordinances that are coming into play that basically zone out development completely,” Mr. Spigelmyer said. “We want to make sure we don’t have ordinances in place that basically remove your rights.”

Negotiations over a severance tax are at the center of ongoing state budget decisions, and Mr. Spigelmyer said Monday a Pennsylvania tax needs to look like those in other, competing shale-gas producing states.

Pennsylvania has benefitted from increased drilling without a severance tax, he said, but an unfair tax and recently introduced legislation to halt drilling in the state will deter development.

“I’ve already seen where companies have walked away from joint venture opportunities to invest in Pennsylvania because of the mere inference of a moratorium,” he said.

“It has the potential to, and I think it already has, limited capital investment in the commonwealth.”

Contact the writer: llegere@timesshamrock.com

View article here.

Copyright:  The Scranton Times

State county commissioners association is working to broaden taxing authority.

By Steve Mocarskysmocarsky@timesleader.com
Staff Writer

Counties, municipalities and school districts aren’t seeing any significant tax revenue related to Marcellus Shale development under current tax law.

But the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania is working to change that, lobbying for legislation that would give those governmental bodies property taxing authority on natural gas similar to taxes levied on coal extraction.

“We have to have the assessment law changed. The reason (is that) other minerals are assessed. It’s not fair to the other mineral (extraction companies) and it’s not fair to the rest of the taxpayers who have to pick up the burden of their exemption,” association Executive Director Douglas Hill said of natural gas and oil companies.

Hill said the state Supreme Court in 2002 ruled that counties had no statutory authority to tax oil and gas because state assessment law specifically includes coal but makes no mention of oil or gas.

Since that time, oil and gas interests have been escaping local property taxes, which had been paid in oil and gas-producing counties since at least the early 1900s, according to a position paper released by the association.

“Producers of other minerals such as coal and limestone already pay their fair share of the property tax. Counties support reversing the Supreme Court’s 2002 decision to assure that oil and gas companies contribute their share to the local tax base as well,” the paper states.

Hill said House Bill 10 of 2009, sponsored by state Rep. Bill DeWeese, D-Greene County, would restore property tax assessment authority on oil and gas.

The levy proposed in the bill would apply only to proven wells. “If there’s nothing to be extracted or (the gas) can’t be extracted, then there is no value,” Hill said.

Hill said there is, of course, opposition to the bill from the oil and gas industry. But he pointed out that other oil and gas producing states assess oil and gas extraction. Hill also said that large, multinational companies involved in Marcellus Shale exploration already had payment of such a tax built into their business plans and were surprised to learn that Pennsylvania counties can’t assess natural gas extraction.

Another association position paper points out several ways local communities are impacted by Marcellus Shale exploration that justify taxation.

“Some of the most visible impacts have been to township roads, county bridges and other infrastructure as developers bring drilling rigs, construction equipment and truckloads of water to and from drilling sites. &hellip Hotels might be filled with workers associated with Marcellus, impacting both the tourism industry and the county hotel tax,” according to the paper.

“Workers from out of state and their families have utilized social services such as drug and alcohol treatment and children and youth services. County jails, county probation and law enforcement have been affected. Even county recorder of deeds offices are affected, flooded by title searchers confirming ownership of subsurface rights,” the paper states.

House Bill 10 is still in the House Finance Committee for consideration.

“We’ve been working on getting agreement to move on it. We want to have things in place for a vote in the House and prepare for going to the Senate. We’ve also been working on an introduction of a bill in the senate,” Hill said.

Generally, legislators understand the issue, Hill said, but it “gets confusing at times because they are looking at a state severance tax,” and the county and local taxation issue “gets tied up in all the other issues related to the Marcellus,” he said.

Currently, there are at least five Senate bills and at least 17 House bills pertaining to Marcellus Shale exploration as well as one House bill, two senate bills and a budget proposal from Gov. Ed Rendell that address the imposition of a severance tax, according to information provided by state Sen. Lisa Baker, R-Lehman Township.

In the meantime, county assessors are waiting for some legislative determinations.

Luzerne County Assessor’s Office Director Tony Alu feels pretty confident that legislation eventually will be adopted and that the county will see some tax revenue from natural gas extraction.

Alu said assessors from various counties had been discussing among themselves various taxation formulas that would be most appropriate to tax natural gas extracted.

“We’re waiting on the state to make a determination so that we can all be uniform. &hellip We just want to make sure we’re doing the right thing,” Alu said.

Steve Mocarsky, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 970-7311.

Copyright: Times Leader

Some residents oppose, but solicitor says only state can halt drilling operations in municipalities.

RALPH NARDONE Times Leader Correspondent

LEHMAN TWP. – Township residents will be getting a new neighbor when EnCana Oil and Gas USA begins drilling for natural gas in late summer.

Township officials voted unanimously Tuesday night to approve an ordinance allowing the company to start Marcellus Shale gas drilling operations near Peaceful Valley Road.

Board of Supervisors Vice Chairman Ray Iwanowski made the motion to enact the ordinance and Chairman David Sutton and Supervisor Douglas Ide voted yes.

Township Zoning Board Solicitor Jack Haley addressed a well-mannered crowd of about 70 people before the vote, essentially telling them the township was in no position to halt the company’s plans.

Some residents who expressed opposition wanted the supervisors to “send a message” by not enacting the ordinance, Haley said. That would have amounted to “civil disobedience,” he said.

According to Haley, all authority to halt drilling operations in any municipality in Pennsylvania lies in the hands of state agencies, not local governments. The township’s rules are “superseded” by the state Oil and Gas Act, he said.

The state Supreme Court already reviewed two similar cases, he added, and decided the only authority Lehman Township has applies to what roads EnCana can use.

Haley also addressed concerns raised that two of the supervisors, Ide and Sutton, have personal ties to gas drilling. Ide leased some of his own land for gas drilling, and Sutton consults property owners concerning drilling, Haley said.

Both members could only second the motion or vote yes but could not participate in any questions about the vote or make the original motion. The only supervisor who could make the motion was Iwanowski.

The state Ethics Commission checked into the potential conflict of interest involving the two supervisors.

Iwanowski outlined six conditions to the motion: that EnCana put up $13,540 to maintain Firehouse Road through the total time it is used; EnCana put up $32,192 to maintain Peaceful Valley Road similarly; all traffic related to the drilling traverse on Firehouse Road toward state Route 118; no traffic will go on Old Route 115 in the township (near the school); EnCana provide adequate insurance coverage for the township, and that a legally binding agreement be signed by EnCana holding it to its commitment.

No representatives from EnCana attended the meeting.

About 25 peaceful protesters were there greeting meeting attendees at the door with anti-drilling literature. Leanne Mazurick, 30, of Dallas Township, stressed the industry is essentially “unregulated.” She said residents in other communities of Northeastern Pennsylvania are having trouble with water contamination where there is drilling.

“We want safeguards put in place,” she said.

Karen Belli, of Dallas Township, and member of Gas Drilling Awareness Coalition, emphasized a long list of ills that arise from local gas drilling. She pointed to homeowners in one local community have to use “water buffaloes” for their water supply because of the contamination.

Belli also questioned how Supervisors Ide and Sutton could be involved in the vote knowing their connections to the industry.

Not all in attendance were opposed. Barry Edwards, of Lehman Township, said the concerns about water are just a “harangue.” He added that in Susquehanna County the drilling companies have made the roads “better than the ever.”

Iwanowski said fixed-income elderly residents and farmers facing large debt are finding the gas drilling a financial “godsend.”

He said the ordinance allows EnCana to drill only vertically. If it wishes to expand horizontally underground that will require another vote from the township.

Copyright: Times Leader

PennEnvironment group wants to ensure water, land isn’t damaged by natural gas exploration.

CBy Rory Sweeneyrsweeney@timesleader.com
Staff Writer

According to a state environmental advocacy group, Pennsylvania needs to do more to ensure that gas drilling creating profits today won’t end up like the coal mining of yesterday that left a costly environmental legacy for the next generation.

In a recent report, PennEnvironment outlined various changes it recommends to the state’s approach to the drilling industry.

They include: strengthening clean-water laws and regulatory tools; making sensitive public lands off limits to drilling and instituting a severance tax on the extracted gas.

“I think we’ve leased out too much state forest land,” said state Rep. Greg Vitali, D-Delaware County, who attended a teleconference last week.

He added that it’s “irresponsible” to lease more until the production is taxed.

“It’s only political influence … that’s kept the Marcellus Shale from being taxed,” he said.

He hoped to get such a tax in the next state budget cycle.

At issue is how to best oversee the increased drilling in the gas-laden shale, which is about a mile underground throughout much of northern and western Pennsylvania. While the state Department of Environmental Protection has promised increased oversight, a rash of issues at various drilling sites has residents concerned that companies will strip out the gas and leave pollution in their wake.

The report lists various regulatory changes PennEnvironment believes would minimize the potential realization of those fears.

“We disagree with the idea that dilution is the solution,” said Brady Russell of the Clean Water Action organization.

He suggested that drilling companies should foot the estimated $300 bill for landowners to get baseline water testing before drilling begins because it can be difficult for landowners to find that money.

The report also calls for better right-to-know laws to force drillers to release the kinds and amounts of chemicals they use and account for the water they consume, while providing for public input that includes allowing health officials opportunities to review proposed permits.

The report also suggests rewriting the municipal code to give local officials primacy over state law for siting wells, which would overrule a recent state Supreme Court decision.

Regarding regulations, the report suggests expanding buffer zones around streams where drilling is prohibited and account for cumulative impacts of drilling when considering additional well permits.

The report calls for banning wastewater discharge to publicly owned treatment works and requiring recycling and reuse of all flow-back wastewater, while setting zero-discharge limits at treatment facilities.

While the report doesn’t address the threat of concentrating naturally radioactive refuse from the drilling process – an issue of concern in New York as the state considers regulations for drilling – Erika Staaf of PennEnvironment said the issue hasn’t come up in Pennsylvania because it doesn’t seem that anyone has tested for it yet.

Rory Sweeney, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 970-7418.

Copyright: Times Leader

Court will hear landowners’ claims that gas companies took advantage of them.

MARC LEVY Associated Press Writer

HARRISBURG — Pennsylvania landowners who want to snatch a better deal from natural gas companies hoping to drill into their ground and the potentially lucrative Marcellus Shale formation beneath it will get the ear of the state’s highest court.

Wednesday’s oral arguments in front of the state Supreme Court are certain to be watched closely for its impact on one of Pennsylvania’s biggest economic opportunities and environmental challenges in decades.

For exploration companies with offices from Calgary to Canonsburg, the decision could either bring a huge sigh of relief or the havoc of renegotiating land leases across the state, possibly throwing the entire gas industry into chaos.

The fact that the court moved quickly to hear the case — and resolve a burgeoning number of complaints in state and federal courts — demonstrates the seriousness of the matter.

“By its actions, I think the court recognizes that this really is an extraordinary issue for Pennsylvania and it’s critically important that it is resolved,” said David Fine, a Harrisburg-based lawyer representing ElexCo Land Services Inc. and Southwestern Energy Production Co.

To some extent, justices will hear plaintiffs’ attorneys tell a story of big corporations taking advantage of unsuspecting landowners, paying them a fraction of the upfront per-acre leasing fee that they later paid to other landowners as competition in the land rush intensified.

“They didn’t know Marcellus Shale from a hole in the wall and they feel the gas companies came in and got them to sell away the rights to their property,” said attorney Laurence M. Kelly, who is representing Susquehanna County landowner Herbert Kilmer and his family.

The real legal question will be whether some tens of thousands of leases were never valid because they violate a state law that guarantees landowners a minimum one-eighth royalty from the production of oil and gas on their land.

The lawsuits are just the latest sign that Pennsylvania’s laws governing mineral rights and environmental protection are lagging behind the large, modern-day industry presence that has descended here.

Dozens of exploration companies and contractors have flocked here since early 2008 from as far away as Houston, Denver, and Calgary, Alberta, in a rush to lock up land rights over the thickest portions of the shale. That rush has eased somewhat since the recession drove down natural gas prices — but the legal disputes have not.

By Fine’s estimate, more than 70 lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts by plaintiffs seeking a judgment that the leases they signed were never valid.

In general, the leases in question give the exploration company the right to subtract certain costs — such as taxes, assessments or transportation — before paying the 12.5 percent royalty. That violates the law, plaintiffs say.

The law, however, is silent on the meaning of “royalty” and whether it is determined before or after those expenses.

Fine and industry officials say it is standard language in leases to deduct those costs — a contention disputed by landowner advocates in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.

But judicial decisions in two of the cases raised the prospect of a myriad of different legal opinions.

In Susquehanna County, the judge in the Kilmer vs. ElexCo case handed the companies an initial victory, saying the law does not specifically prohibit the subtraction of costs. Kilmer has appealed to state Superior Court.

Separately, a federal judge in Scranton hearing a case against Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. denied a motion to dismiss the case, saying the law’s silence does not necessarily mean the costs can be legally deducted.

Fine decided to ask the state Supreme Court to take up Kilmer vs. Elexco immediately, and effectively settle the matter for everyone.

Still, the high court’s decision could create a new kind of chaos. Records of oil and gas leases dating back to the royalty law of 1979 are kept in county courthouses, often in arcane filing systems, making it nearly impossible to know how many landowners and leases are potentially affected.

“I’m sure that no one person knows,” Kelly said.

Copyright: Times Leader

Bill, 2 Supreme Court decisions could alter how operations are taxed, located.

By Rory Sweeneyrsweeney@timesleader.com
Staff Writer

Three recent state-level actions – a legislative bill and two state Supreme Court decisions – could affect how natural gas wells are sited and taxed. Earlier this week, state Rep. Bill DeWeese, D-Greene County, proposed a bill to tax underground gas deposits by adding their assessed values to property taxes. The driller would pay, and the tax revenue would, for the first year, be used to reduce the municipality’s millage to equal the previous year’s tax revenue. The millage – a dollar tax on every $1,000 of assessed property value – could be increased in subsequent years.

“If a municipality needs the same amount of money as last year, then yes, the millage would go down. But, the reality is they’re probably going to keep ours the same and get more money from them (the drillers),” said Marianne Rexer, a business professor at Wilkes University.

The bill is in response to a 2002 state Supreme Court decision that no law exists to tax natural gas, as there does to tax coal and other minerals.

Stephen Rhoads, president of the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Association, said the tax wasn’t utilized by many counties before, and “it is a false hope that this is going to bring a revenue stream to counties and school districts any time soon.”

The state Supreme Court ruled in February on two western Pennsylvania cases regarding municipalities’ rights to restrict drilling.

In one case, the court found municipalities can’t control where drilling infrastructure is permitted, as that would interfere with regulations already promulgated in the state Oil and Gas Act.

But they can indicate in which zoning districts drilling may be allowed “in recognition of the unique expertise of municipal governing bodies to designate where different uses should be permitted in a manner that accounts for the community’s development objectives,” the court’s opinion states in the other case.

The ruling might not have much effect in the Northeastern Pennsylvania municipalities of interest to drillers. Many don’t have zoning ordinances, and others, such as Fairmount Township in northwest Luzerne County, want less restrictive ones.

Several landowners have sought drilling leases, township Supervisor David Keller said, and he has no interest in restricting their options. The township now yields to the county’s Planning and Zoning office, but Keller said the township is looking into writing its own zoning ordinance because “it would give us more leeway to let people do more with their property as they see fit.”

Copyright: Times Leader

By MARC LEVY Associated Press Writer

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) _ The land agents, geologists and drilling crews rushing after the Marcellus Shale are raising something besides the natural gas they’re seeking: Talk of a natural gas tax.

Thanks to a state Supreme Court decision six years ago, Pennsylvania is now one of the biggest natural-gas producing states — if not the biggest — that does not tax the methane sucked from beneath its ground.

But momentum is gathering to impose such a tax. The Marcellus Shale — a layer of black rock that holds a vast reservoir of gas — is luring some of the country’s largest gas producers to Pennsylvania, and state government revenues are being waylaid by a worldwide economic malaise.

A spokesman for Gov. Ed Rendell says the administration is looking at the idea of a tax on natural gas, but a decision has not been made. Typically, Rendell does not reveal any tax or revenue proposals until his official budget plan is introduced each February.

Senate Republicans are planning a November hearing at Misericordia University in northeastern Pennsylvania to look at what effect can be expected on local governments if Marcellus Shale production lives up to its potential.

Local officials worry about damage to local roads ill-suited for heavy truck traffic and equipment. School districts could be strained by families of gas company employees moving into town. And some residents are concerned about gas wells disrupting or polluting the water tables from which they draw drinking water.

Legislators must find the fairest way for companies to share those costs, whether by levying a tax or through some other means, said Sen. Jake Corman, R-Centre, the GOP’s policy chairman.

“I do think there is an understanding that some sort of compensation for municipalities is warranted,” Corman said. “We just have to figure out the best way to do that.”

So far, drilling activity is under way on the Marcellus Shale in at least 18 counties, primarily in the northern tier and southwest where the shale is thickest, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection.

Land agents are trooping in and out of county courthouses to research the below-ground mineral rights. At least several million acres above the Marcellus Shale have been leased by companies in West Virginia, New York and Pennsylvania.

Just this week, Range Resources Corp. and a Denver-based gas processor said they have started up Pennsylvania’s first large-scale gas processing plant, about 20 miles south of Pittsburgh.

And CNX Gas Corp. announced that a $6 million horizontal well it drilled in southwest Pennsylvania is producing a respectable 1.2 million cubic feet a day — a rate it expects to improve in coming weeks.

In the opposite corner of Pennsylvania, drilling pads are now visible on Susquehanna County’s farmland, and hotel rooms are booked with land agents and drilling crews.

“It is the talk at the coffee shops, at the local grocery store, the gas station — everybody,” said state Sen. Lisa Baker, R-Luzerne.

Activity is still in the early stages, as exploration companies work to confirm their basic assumptions about the potential of the Marcellus Shale reservoir, and probe for the spots with the greatest promise, analysts say.

Industry representatives say they oppose a tax, and Stephen W. Rhoads, the president of the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Association, questioned the wisdom of imposing a tax on gas production that is still speculative.

In some natural-gas states, a tax is collected based on a company’s gas production by volume.

But in Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that state law did not allow counties, schools and municipalities to impose a real estate tax based on the value of the subsurface oil and gas rights held by exploration companies.

An appraiser’s study presented last year during a House Finance Committee hearing estimated that the court’s decision had cost Greene, Fayette and Washington counties up to $30 million in county, school and municipal tax revenue.

The state’s county commissioners and school boards support the resumption of some type of taxing authority — although that could mean landowners would get smaller royalty checks.

Regardless, Doug Hill, the executive director of the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania, said the matter is one of basic fairness since coal, gravel and limestone are assessed.

“The bottom line is it isn’t a windfall issue,” Hill said. “It’s a tax equity issue.”

___

Marc Levy covers state government for The Associated Press in Harrisburg. He can be reached at mlevy(at)ap.org.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

Revenue from tax on underground resources seen as windfall, but bill would need more support to pass.

Local municipalities could tap into the potential natural gas drilling windfall if state lawmakers are able to push through legislation that’s been stalled for more than a year.

House Bill 1373 would amend the state General County Assessment Law to explicitly make underground resources such as natural gas and oil subject to real estate assessment and taxation. The bill would require gas companies to pay taxes on the resources they extract, but wouldn’t add any tax burden to landowners.

“We’re concerned about these companies coming in and sucking up huge profits at the expense of citizens of Pennsylvania,” said state Rep. Eddie Pashinski, D-Wilkes-Barre, who is a co-sponsor of the bill.

Introduced in May 2007 by House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese, the bill was drafted in reaction to a state Supreme Court decision that ruled taxing those resources wasn’t specifically enumerated in the law. The amendment would preempt that ruling by making taxation of those resources part of the law.

Tom Andrews, DeWeese’s press secretary, said the push for the bill came from DeWeese’s constituent municipalities in western Pennsylvania, which had been relying on revenue from the resource taxes for years before it was shut off by the court decision.

However, the bill has been stalled in the House Finance Committee since May 2007, and sentiment among supporters is that state Senate Republicans, on principle, won’t support a tax bill.

“At this point, I don’t think it has the support to pass in the House, pass in the Senate and be signed by the governor, so that’s why we’ve held off on pushing it out of the House,” Andrews said.

Rory Sweeney, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 970-7418.

Copyright: Times Leader