Finally, I&E stated that the interpretation of stripper well Commission’s supports position. For example, I&E cited to the and Reconsideration Order Act I&E’s 13 of 2012-Implementation of Unconventional Gas Well Impact Fee Act, Proposed Docket No. L-2013-2375551 (Order entered October 17, 2013) Rulemaking Order, (Rulemaking in which the Commission stated that if production exceeds 90,000 Order), cf per day in any calendar month during a calendar year, that well is subject to fees under Act 13. I&E S.J. Brief at 11-12. I&E disagreed with contention that the impact fee is a tax and argued SBI’s that the term stripper well should not be construed in favor of SBI. In support, I&E cited to Section 2318 of Act 13, 58 Pa. C.S. § 2318, which requires the Secretary of the Commonwealth, upon imposition of a severance tax on unconventional gas wells in Pennsylvania, to publish notice in the I&E argued that this Pennsylvania Bulletin. demonstrates that the General Assembly intended to differentiate between the impact fee imposed by Act 13 and a tax. In addition, I&E asserted that the purpose of imposing impact fees under Act 13 is to offset the impact on municipalities in which drilling is taking place and not to generate revenue. I&E S.J. Brief at 12-13. In his ALJ Salapa agreed with SBI that there is no factual S.J. Order, dispute as to the amount of gas produced by wells and therefore no dispute as to SBI’s the material facts of the case. The ALJ concluded, however, that SBI was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. at 16. S.J. Order The ALJ agreed with arguments that the definition of stripper well I&E’s was ambiguous and noted that that ambiguity was the reason why the Commission issued not only the and but also a third order, Implementation Order Reconsideration Order, Act Docket No. 13 of 2012-Implementation of Unconventional Gas Well Impact Fee Act, (Clarification Order entered December 20, 2012) (Clarification in Order),
Finally, I&E stated that the Commission’s interpretation of stripper well supports I&E’s position. For example, I&E cited to the Reconsideration Order and Act 13 of 2012-Implementation of Unconventional Gas Well Impact Fee Act, Proposed Rulemaking Order, Docket No. L-2013-2375551 (Order entered October 17, 2013) (Rulemaking Order), in which the Commission stated that if production exceeds 90,000 cf per day in any calendar month during a calendar year, that well is subject to fees under Act 13. I&E S.J. Brief at 11-12. I&E disagreed with SBI’s contention that the impact fee is a tax and argued that the term stripper well should not be construed in favor of SBI. In support, I&E cited to Section 2318 of Act 13, 58 Pa. C.S. § 2318, which requires the Secretary of the Commonwealth, upon imposition of a severance tax on unconventional gas wells in Pennsylvania, to publish notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. I&E argued that this demonstrates that the General Assembly intended to differentiate between the impact fee imposed by Act 13 and a tax. In addition, I&E asserted that the purpose of imposing impact fees under Act 13 is to offset the impact on municipalities in which drilling is taking place and not to generate revenue. I&E S.J. Brief at 12-13. In his S.J. Order, ALJ Salapa agreed with SBI that there is no factual dispute as to the amount of gas produced by SBI’s wells and therefore no dispute as to the material facts of the case. The ALJ concluded, however, that SBI was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. S.J. Order at 16. The ALJ agreed with I&E’s arguments that the definition of stripper well was ambiguous and noted that that ambiguity was the reason why the Commission issued not only the Implementation Order and Reconsideration Order, but also a third order, Act 13 of 2012-Implementation of Unconventional Gas Well Impact Fee Act, Docket No. (Clarification Order entered December 20, 2012) (Clarification Order), in
1365589.docx