Resources to Bolster Public Comment to PA DEP Advisory Committees Regarding Proposed  Methane Emissions Rule for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Facilities

Contents:

1.  PA Constitution Article 1, Section 27 (1971);

2. PA Department of Environmental Protection's Environmental Ethic (1979);

3. US Supreme Court: Massachusetts v. US EPA (2007)

4. PA Climate Change Act & Reports (2008);  

5. US EPA Endangerment Finding (2009);

6. PA Supreme Court: Robinson Township v. Commonwealth of PA (2013)

7.  PA Supreme Court: Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation v. Commonwealth of PA (2017)

8.  US EPA Methane Rule (2024)

9.  PA Methane Rule (2025)

10. US Department of Energy Website: A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on US Climate (2025)

11. US Environmental Protection Agency Proposed Rule: Reconsideration of 2009 Endangerment Finding and Greenhouse Gas Vehicle Standards

 

1. Article 1, Section 27 of the PA Constitution, aka the Environmental Rights Amendment.  Our state's natural resources were decimated after more than a century of economic exploitation by the timber, oil, coal and steel industries.  Our state's forests, watersheds, clean water and and wild animals were ruined.  In 1971 residents had endured enough and amended our state constitution.  

They identified specific environmental rights to be fundamental liberties.  They declared common ownership of public natural resources.  Residents demanded our local and state government employees perform the trustee duties of prudence, impartiality and loyalty.  And finally, they recognized the  beneficiaries of this public trust to be the living residents of Pennsylvania and those generations yet to be born.

Constitution of Pennsylvania - Article 1, Section 27 Environmental Rights Amendment link

WITF TV "For Generations Yet to Come" 2018 video link

2. The Environmental Ethic within the Environmental Master Plan.  The state agency that eventually became the PA Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) was created by Act 275 of 1970.  The following rules/regulations were written by the new environmental agency in 1979.  They are in Title 25 of what is called the Pennsylvania Code.

I have never read government regulations so intent on changing how that agency was to operate going forward.  These provisions are state law today.  They spell out how the "environmental ethic" was to influence the new Environmental Master Plan spelled out in Title 25, Chapter 9.

My favorite Section is 9.2(a). The environmental ethic—principles to guide the Environmental Master Plan Program.

"(a)  The development of an ecologically sensitive philosophy provides a means for incorporating a broader understanding of the natural environment and man’s relationships to the natural environment into ‘‘a master environmental plan.’’ Incorporating an understanding of and a respect for ecologic values into the existing social structure requires a rethinking of traditional man-environment relationships. There must be an attempt to challenge and change those attitudes which do not reflect an overall sensitivity for the environment. Traditional attitudes related to the environment can be characterized by the following statements:(my emphasis)

   (1)  Growth is good.

   (2)  Technology can solve any problem.

   (3)  Economics is a higher concern than environmental protection.

   (4)  Maintaining a natural environment is not a productive use of the land.

   (5)  Lessening population growth eliminates resource consumption problems.

   (6)  Nature can be protected by setting aside small areas of the environment.

   (7)  The knowledge and superiority of man places him above the laws of nature."

  Title 25 Pa. Code Chapter 9. Environmental Master Plan link 

3. United States Supreme Court case: Massachusetts v. EPA.  In 2007, Massachusetts and several other state governments sought to force the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) to make a decision whether or not greenhouse gases were dangerous.  Many other states did not want the US EPA to make this choice.

Specifically, the Clean Air Act required the US EPA Administrator to make a finding that a substance was a "hazardous air pollutant" before it could be regulated by the US EPA.  Once that "finding" was completed, the states hoped the US EPA would begin to restrict emissions of greenhouse gases from automobile and trucks, referred to as mobile sources. 

By a 5-4 vote, the US Supreme Court agreed with Massachusetts and the other plaintiff states.

Massachusetts v. EPA | 549 U.S. 497 (2007) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

4. Pennsylvania's Climate Change Act of 2008.  The Pennsylvania General Assembly contains our House of Representatives and Senate.  It meets in our state capital, Harrisburg.  In 2008, both Republicans and Democrats sponsored Act 70 to address climate change.  

Once passed, this statute required Pennsylvania to create a Climate Change Advisory Committee (CCAC) to be made up members with differing views on climate change. 

In addition, Act 70 required the CCAC to create a Climate Change Action Plan and a Climate Change Impact statement every three years.  These documents are submitted to the General Assembly and published on the CCAC website.

I find the CCAC website and both documents to be very informative and educational.

CCAC takes public comment, written and oral, regarding agenda items for that meeting.  Members of the public can provide comment in person or virtualy.  I gave public comment to the CCAC members in October.

PA Climate Change Act 70.pdf

 PA Climate Change Advisory Committee's website within the Department of Environmental Protection

Residents Climate Change page containing 2024 PA Climate Impacts Assessment and Climate Action Plan  *For PA residents concerned with climate change in our state, this link contains a tremendous amount of information. 

5. US Environmental Protection Agency's Endangerment Finding.  In 2009, US EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson concluded that greenhouse gases were an air pollutant that the US EPA should regulate pursuant to the Clean Air Act.  This is called an Endangerment Finding.

Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act | US EPA

6. Case Summary for Robinson Twp. v. Commonwealth of PA, 83 A.3d 901 (PA Supreme Court, (2013)

Facts of case: The PA General Assembly passed Act 13 in 2013 to facilitate natural gas drilling throughout our state.  One Act 13 provision permitted natural gas drilling companies to sign drilling leases with private property owners in disregard of local municipal zoning ordinances.  Several Pennsylvania municipalities and citizens sued the PA Public Utility Commission to block enforcement of Act 13 against the municipalities.

Appeal issue: Does Act 13 violate the municipalities’ Environmental Rights Amendment (ENRA( duties to their residents to protect the public natural resources of the municipality?  If so, does Act 13 violate Article 1, Section 27 of the PA Constitution? Court's holding: Four Justices cited ENRA as reason to vote for unconstitutionality, one cited substantive due process as justification for finding Act 13 unconstitutional. All five, however, agreed Plaintiffs should prevail but for two different legal reasons. This was a plurality decision.  It was not legally binding on future cases. To be a legal precedent, a majority (five) of justices agree on the same legal reason for the same outcome for the parties to the case. Brown v. Board of Education was a an example of a federal court precedent setting case. It set a legal precedent that courts throughout the country were to follow.

 Robinson Township, et al v. Pa. Public Utility Commission and Attorney General (2013) PA Supreme Court Justia . 

I have a suggestion if you're not familiar with reading court opinions on Justia.  What I do is to scan down a ways and you will see the formal, typed opinion.  I click on the double arrow top right and then zoom in to avoid the advertisements.

7. Case summary for Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation (PEDF) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  The case was argued before the PA Supreme Court in March, 2016 and decided in June,2017.  It is reported at 161 A.3d 911, 917 (PA Supreme Court, 2017).

Facts: In 1955, the PA General Assembly enacted an Oil and Gas Lease Fund Act (Lease Fund) requiring all rents and royalties from oil and gas leases of Commonwealth land to be deposited  in it.  All these monies were to be “exclusively used for conservation, recreation, dams or flood control….”   

In 1995 the General Assembly created the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR).  Thereafter, the General Assembly altered the Lease Fund to provide that all monies paid into the Lease Fund were “specifically appropriated to the DCNR."

Over the years increased leasing of state land for natural gas wells occurred.  In 2009, the General Assembly amended the Fiscal Code to permit itself to transfer Lease Fund monies to the Commonwealth’s General Fund, not the Lease Fund.

Appeal issue: PEDF sought a declaratory judgment against the Commonwealth claiming the General Assembly's reallocation and the Governor's spending of the Lease Fund monies as part of the General State Budget "violated the rights of all Commonwealth citizens conferred by the Environmental Rights Amendments (ENRA).

“This is not the first time we have been called upon to address the rights and obligations set forth in the ENRA.  We did so in Robinson Twp. and we rely here upon the statement of basic principles thoughtfully developed in that plurality opinion.”

“By arguing that proceeds obtained from the sale of our natural resources are not part of the corpus of the trust, the Commonwealth improperly conceives of itself as a mere proprietor of those public natural resources, rather than as a trustee.  In the Commonwealth’s view, it may dispose of our public natural resources as it so chooses and for any purpose it so conceives, so long as such disposition broadly benefits the public (“apparently without regard to “generations yet to come”)… as such it urges us to substantially diminish its fiduciary obligation to present and remedy the degradation of our natural resources.  We decline to do so.” 

This was a majority opinion because four of the seven Justices who took part in this case agreed that PEDF should prevail based upon the ENRA. 

 Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation v. Commonwealth (2017) PA Supreme Ccourt pdf

8. US EPA Methane Rule.  In May, 2024, the Biden US EPA proposed a rule to restrict methane emissions from crude oil and natural gas facilities across the country.  The proposal was printed in the Federal Register and anticipated individual state governments forming their own methane emission rule to be submitted back to the US EPA to become part of that state's State Implementation Plan. 

Federal Register US EPA Methane rule

9. PA Methane Rule. In response to the Biden US EPA proposal, PA DEP proposed it's own Methane Rule in May, 2025.  It was printed in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.

As part of the proposal process, PA DEP solicited public comment from Pennsylvania residents by July 31, 2025.  PA DEP received 1011 pages of public comment on the Methane Plan! Each page contained 8 to 10 individual responses!  These responses are from those who support the rule and those who do not.  Both individuals and businesses replied.  Many oil and natural gas companies responded.  

I learned many sides of the issues by reading around 15 of these ecomments.

PA DEP's Methane Rule has been sent to a second Advisory Committee for review.  It is called the Air Quality Technical Advisory Committe (AQTAC).  AQTAC members are studying the Methane Rule now and will eventually make recommendations to PA DEP as to whether or not to adopt the Methane Rule.  

AQTAC takes public comment, written and oral, regarding agenda items for that meeting.  Members of the public can be in person or virtual to present three minutes of public comment.  I spoke virtually to the AQTAC on November 5, 2025.  Contact the Committee Liason person to be sent a link and sign up for public comment.

PA DEP proposed methane rule

PA DEP eComments received on proposed Methane Rule To read comments, hover over either Text Comment column or Files on right side of chart.

Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee Webpage

10.  In late July, 2025, the Trump Administration published a report critical of prior climate change studies and conclusions on the US Department of Energy's website.

US DOE report "A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on U.S. Climate

11. In August, 2025, US EPA Administrator Zellin announced the US EPA would be deciding whether or not to continue regulating greenhouse gases pursuant to the 2009 Endangerment Finding. 11-17-25

Proposed Rule: Reconsideration of 2009 Endangerment Finding and Greenhouse Gas Vehicle Standards | US EPA