Just days after a seventh justice was sworn in to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the Public Utility Commission (PUC) submitted a request that the high court reconsider its decision to quash an appeal by the commission regarding enforcement of Act 13, the state’s omnibus Marcellus Shale law.

Meanwhile the PUC and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) filed a joint request that the high court resubmit a separate legal challenge to Act 13, in hopes that the full complement of judges would hear the case and avoid a potential 3-3 tie.

On July 25, the high court quashed an appeal by the PUC seeking to overturn Commonwealth Court Senior Judge Keith Quigley’s order that the commission cannot use a review process to enforce some provisions of Act 13 (see NGI, July 29; Nov. 5, 2012). Quigley barred the PUC from acting upon requests pursuant to Section 3305 of the state’s Oil and Gas Act, which empowers the commission to issue advisory opinions on whether local ordinances comply with Act 13 and the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code.

Quigley had argued that the Commonwealth Court’s ruling that portions of Act 13 were unconstitutional had permanently enjoined the state from enforcing Section 3304 of the Oil and Gas Act, which addresses the uniformity of local ordinances (see NGI, July 30, 2012).

But in its reconsideration request, the PUC argued the high court misapplied a legal principle, and had underestimated the effect of Quigley’s order and its relationship to other pending appeals.

“The court’s recent decision left some ambiguity regarding the injunction that the Commission is requesting that the court clear up,” PUC spokeswoman Denise McCracken told NGI.

The PUC and the DEP have asked that a separate legal challenge to Act 13 be resubmitted to the Supreme Court. Such a move could allow Correale Stevens, the high court’s newest justice, an opportunity to hear the case and avoid a 3-3 tie. Stevens was sworn in on July 30. The state’s high court already has heard oral arguments on a separate appeal of Act 13’s constitutionality and is expected to make a decision in the near future (see NGI, July 22).

“Due to the high profile nature and importance of the case, we believe that it is in everyone’s best interests to have the entire court review the case now that they are at full strength,” McCracken said.

In challenging Act 13, seven municipalities (Washington County’s Cecil, Mt. Pleasant, Peters and Robinson townships; Allegheny County’s South Fayette Township; Bucks County’s Nockamixon Township and the Borough of Yardley) were joined by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, township officials and a doctor from Monroeville, PA.