OPINION BY
JUDGE P. KEVIN BROBSON
Petitioner Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association (PIOGA) initiated this [821]*821action for declaratory relief in our original jurisdiction against Respondent Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), asking this Court to declare that DEP may not apply and enforce Section 3215(c) of the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act, also known as Act 13,1 58 Pa. C.S. § 215(c), as part of its well permit application process. PIOGA contends that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court enjoined application and enforcement of Section 3215(e) of Act 13 in Robinson Township v. Commonwealth, 623 Pa. 564, 83 A.3d 901 (2013) (Robinson Twp. I).2 PIOGA has moved for judgment on the pleadings, and DEP has filed a cross-application for summary relief, seeking dismissal of PIOGA’s petition for review.3 The dispute before the Court is a legal one. For the reasons set forth below, we deny PIOGA’s motion and grant DEP’s cross-application.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Act 13 and Robinson Twp. I
In February 2012, Governor Tom Cor-bett signed Act 13 into law. Act 13 repealed the Oil and Gas Act of 1984.4 In place thereof, Act 13 amended Title 58 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes by re-codifying portions of the repealed Oil and Gas Act of 1984 and adding new provisions organized into three new parts and six new chapters relating to oil and gas development in the Commonwealth. Chapter 32 of Act 13 addresses well permitting and establishes statewide limitations on oil and gas development. As described by our Pennsylvania Supreme Court, “Act 13 comprise[d] sweeping legislation affecting Pennsylvania’s environment and, in particular, the exploitation and recovery of natural gas in a geological formation known as the Marcellus Shale.” Robinson Twp. I, 83 A.3d at 913.
In Robinson Twp. I, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, on appeal from a decision by this Court, considered, inter alia, legal challenges to Chapter 32 of Act 13. A plurality concluded ' that Sections 3215(b)(4), 3215(d), 3303, and 3304 of Act 13 violated Article I, section 27 of the [822]*822Pennsylvania Constitution, known as the Environmental Rights Amendment.5 Id. at 985 (plurality).6 Justice Baer, writing separately, concurred with the plurality’s conclusion that these sections were unconstitutional, but on substantive due process grounds. Id. at 1008-09 (Baer, J., concurring). He also concurred in the plurality’s mandate, yielding a majority directive, that “application and enforcement of Sections 3215(b)(4), 3215(d), 3303, and 3304 [of Act 13] is hereby enjoined.” Id. at 1000 (plurality), 1009 (Baer, J., concurring).
Section 3215(b) of Act 13 imposed restrictions on the location of oil and gas wells. Section 3215(b)(1) through (3) provided for well site and related disturbed area setbacks from certain perennial streams,7 springs, other bodies of water, and wetlands. Section 3215(b)(4) provided that DEP must waive the setbacks under certain conditions:
The department shall waive the distance restrictions upon submission of a plan identifying additional measures, facilities or practices to be employed during well site construction, drilling and operations necessary to protect the waters of this Commonwealth. The waiver, if granted, shall include additional terms and conditions required by the department necessary to protect the waters of this Commonwealth. Notwithstanding section 3211(e), if a waiver request has been submitted, the department may extend its permit review period for up to 15 days upon notification to the applicant of the reasons for the extension.
58 Pa. C.S. § 3215(b)(4). As noted above, a majority of Supreme Court justices held that this provision, authorizing a waiver of setbacks, was unconstitutional and enjoined its application and enforcement.
In Part V of Robinson Twp. I, a majority of the Supreme Court8 addressed the severability of other provisions in Section 3215, in light of their conclusion that Section 3215(b)(4) was unconstitutional. Among the provisions that the Supreme Court addressed was Section 3215(c), the provision at issue in this matter. Section 3215(c) provides:
On making a determination on a well permit, the department shall consider the impact of the proposed well on public resources, including, but not limited to:
(1) Publicly owned parks, forests, game lands and wildlife areas.
(2) National or State scenic rivers.
(3) National natural landmarks.
(4) Habitats of rare and endangered flora and fauna and other critical communities.
[823]*823(5) Historical and archaeological sites listed on the Federal or State list of historic places.
(6) Sources used for public drinking supplies in accordance with subsection (b).
58 Pa. C.S. § 3215(c). The majority also considered the severability of Section 3215(e), which provides:
The Environmental Quality Board [“EQB”] shall develop by regulation criteria:
(1) For the department to utilize for conditioning a well permit based on its impact to the public resources identified under subsection (c) and for ensuring optimal development of oil and gas resources and respecting property rights of oil and gas owners.
(2) For appeal to the Environmental Hearing Board of a permit containing conditions imposed by the department. The regulations shall also provide that the department has the burden of proving that the conditions were necessary to protect against a probable harmful impact of the public resources.
58 Pa. C.S. § 3215(e) (emphasis added).
On severability, the Supreme Court first rejected the request of the challengers to declare the entirety of Act 13 unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s decision that certain “core” parts of Act 13 were unconstitutional. Robinson Twp. I, 83 A.3d at 998-99. The Supreme Court, however, recognized that “there are obvious consequences of certain of our holdings.” Id. at 999 (emphasis added). In so doing, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the parties did not offer much guidance with respect to a section-by-section severability analysis. Nonetheless, it proceeded to consider the question “in part, to the extent that its application is obvious and necessary to provide direction to the parties going forward.” Id. (emphasis added).
With respect to the setbacks in Section 3215(b)(1) through (3) of Act 13 for well locations, the Supreme Court opined that the waiver provision in subsection (b)(4), which the majority held unconstitutional, was “a key part of the Section 3215(b) scheme.” Id. Concluding that the General Assembly did not intend that the setback provisions apply in the absence of the waiver provision, the Supreme Court concluded that the provisions of Section 3215(b) were not severable — i.e., were “incomplete and incapable of execution in accordance with the legislative intent.” Id. Accordingly, the Supreme Court enjoined application and enforcement of Section 3215(b) in its entirety. The Supreme Court’s mandate in this regard provides: “The remaining parts of Section 3215(b) are not severable from Section 3215(b)(4) and, as a result, the application or enforcement of Section 3215(b) is enjoined in its entirety.” Id. at 1000.
With respect to Sections 3215(c) and (e), the Supreme Court concluded, without any additional supporting analysis: “Moreover, insofar as Section 3215(c) and (e) are part of the Section 3215(b) decisional process, these provisions as well are incomplete and incapable of execution in accordance with legislative intent. Application of Section 3215(c) and (e) is, therefore, also enjoined.” Id. at 999 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court’s mandate in this regard provides: “Moreover, Sections 3215(c) and (e) ... are not severable to the extent that these provisions implement or enforce those Sections of Act 13 which we have found invalid and, in this respect, their application or enforcement is also enjoined.” Id. at 1000 (emphasis added).
B. Well Permitting Post-Robinson Twp. I
PIOGA initiated this action because, after Robinson Twp. I, DEP, as part of the [824]*824well permit application process, continues to seek- information from applicants relating to the impact that a proposed well site will have on the public natural resources identified in Section 3215(c) of Act 13. DEP confirms this practice in its Answer to PIOGA’s petition for review:
DEP requires well permit applicants to complete the form entitled “Coordination of a Well Location with Public Resources” (DEP Form No. 5500 — PM— OG0076) (“Public Resources Form”) and to comply with DEP’s Policy for Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (“PNDI”) Coordination During Permit Review and Evaluation (DEP Document No. 021-0200-001) (“PNDI Policy”). By way of further answer, DEP requires well permit applicants to identify the impacts to threatened and endangered species and species of special concern, and to coordinate with applicable jurisdiction agencies if these species may be present at or near the proposed well site consistent with the PNDI Policy.
(DEP Answer ¶ 23.) Through the Public Resources Form, DEP asks, inter alia, that the well permit applicant identify public resources in the vicinity of the proposed well site, coordinate with responsible agencies, and describe measures that the applicant will take to protect those public resources. Through the PNDI Policy, DEP seeks, inter alia, to identify and mitigate any impact a proposed well site may have on certain threatened, endangered, or special concern species (both flora and fauna).9
DEP contends that notwithstanding Robinson Twp. I, Section 3215(c) of Act 13 provides DEP with the authority to require applicants to complete the Public Resources Form and to comply with the PNDI Policy and to consider this information in evaluating the impact a proposed well will have on public natural resources. (DEP Answer ¶¶ 3, 24.)
II. QUESTIONS PRESENTED
In its motion for judgment on the pleadings, PIOGA’s principal argument is that DEP currently applies Section 3215(c) of Act 13 by requiring well permit applicants to complete the Public Resources Form and comply with the PNDI Policy. PIOGA contends that by doing so, DEP is violating the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s mandate in Robinson Twp. I. Alternatively, PIOGA claims, in response to DEP’s answer to the amended petition for review, that no other law authorizes DEP to require well permit applicants to complete the Public Resources Form and comply with the PNDI Policy. Finally, PIOGA contends that even if DEP has the authority to require compliance in this regard in the name of protecting the Commonwealth’s public resources, there are no standards governing DEP’s exercise of that authority, raising constitutional concerns.
In its cross-application for summary relief, DEP’s principal argument is that notwithstanding Robinson Twp. I, DEP retains authority under Section 3215(c) of Act 13 to protect public resources from the potential impact of oil and gas wells. Alternatively, should this Court conclude that Robinson Twp. I enjoined for all purposes application and enforcement of Section 3215(c) of Act 13, DEP contends that its authority to protect public resources reverts to relevant provisions in the repealed Oil and Gas Act of 1984.
Based on these contentions, we will first address the partiés’ dispute over how to [825]*825interpret the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s mandate in Robinson Twp. I with respect to Section 3215(c) of Act 13. Our resolution of that question will determine whether we must and, if so, how we will address the parties’ other issues.
III. DISCUSSION
A. The Supreme Court’s Mandate
Before considering the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s mandate with respect to Section 3215(c) of Act 13, some background on the substance of that provision provides useful context for the discussion.
Despite the sweeping effect of Act 13, Pennsylvania has long regulated on a statewide basis the location of oil and gas wells as part of the well permitting process. Section 3215 of Act 13 essentially replaced Section 205 of the Oil and Gas Act of 1984, 58 P.S. § 601.205 (repealed 2012). See generally Huntley & Huntley, Inc. v. Borough Council of Borough of Oakmont, 600 Pa. 207, 964 A.2d 855 (2009) (discussing overlap between Oil and Gas Act of 1984 and local zoning ordinance regulation of well site location). Like Section 3215, Section 205 of the Oil and Gas Act of 1984 provided specific restrictions on the location of oil and gas wells designed to protect existing water wells, buildings, streams, and other bodies of water. Moreover, like Section 3215, Section 205 of the Oil and Gas Act of 1984 provided for variances and waivers of these restrictions but, unlike Section 3215, only at the discretion of DEP — a difference affected by the General Assembly’s use of the mandatory word “shall” in Section 3215 of Act 13 instead of the permissive “may” in Section 205 of the Oil and Gas Act of 1984. Compare 58 P.S. § 601.205(a), (b) (repealed 2012), with 58 Pa, C.S. § 3215(a), (b).
Most relevant to the primary issue before the Court is Section 205(c) of the Oil and Gas Act of 1984, the precursor to Section 3215(c) of Act 13. Consider this side-by-side comparison:
[826]*826Section 205(c) of the Oil and Gas Act of 1984
The department shall, on making a determination on a well permit, consider the impact of the proposed well on public resources to include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) Publicly owned parks, forests, game lands and wildlife areas.
(2) National or State scenic rivers.
(3) National natural landmarks.
(4) Habitats of rare and endangered flora and fauna and other critical communities.
(5) Historical and archaeological sites listed on the Federal or State list of historic places.
Section 3215(c) of Act 13
On making a detennination on a well permit, the department shall consider the impact of the proposed well on public resources, including, but not limited to:
(1) Publicly owned parks, forests, game lands and wildlife areas.
(2) National or State scenic rivers.
(3) National natural landmarks.
(4) Habitats of rare and endangered flora and fauna and other critical communities.
(5) Historical and archaeological sites listed on the Federal or State list of historic places.
(6) Sources used for public drinking supplies in accordance with subsection (b).
In large measure, when the General Assembly passed Act 13, it re-enacted Section 205(c) of the Oil and Gas Act of 1984. The only material change was the addition of a sixth class of enumerated “public resources,” that being “[s]ources used for public drinking supplies in accordance with subsection (b)” — a cross-reference to the Section 3215(b) setback and waiver provisions relating to perennial streams, springs, other bodies of water, and wetlands. With respect to Section 3215(e) of Act 13, which, inter alia, directs the EQB to develop regulatory criteria “[f]or the department to utilize for conditioning a well permit based on its impact to the public resources identified under [Section 3215(c) of Act 13],” there appears to be no equivalent in the repealed Oil and Gas Act of 1984.
PIOGA contends that the Supreme Court in Robinson Twp. I enjoined application and enforcement of Section 3215(c) in every instance. It relies primarily on language found in Part V of the Supreme Court’s opinion, addressing severability. There, as noted above, a majority of the Justices of the Supreme Court found a [827]*827relation between Section 3215(c) and (e) and Section 3215(b), the latter of which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional. PIOGA directs this Court to express language within that portion of the opinion, where the Supreme Court enjoins Section 3215(c) and (e) without qualification: “Application of Section 3215(c) and (e) is, therefore, also enjoined.” Robinson Twp. I, 83 A.3d at 999 (emphasis added). (PIOGA Br. in Support of Motion for Judgment on Pleadings at 17.)
DEP, by contrast, contends that the Supreme Court’s decision with respect to application and enforceability of Sections 3215(c) and (e) of Act 13 was qualified, or limited, as reflected in the body of the opinion where the Supreme Court expressly provided that the provisions should be enjoined only “insofar as Section 3215(c) and (e) are part of the Section 3215(b) decisional process,” which is a reference to the setback from water sources provisions and waiver process. Robinson Twp. I, 83 A.3d at 999. DEP contends that whatever link the Supreme Court drew between Section 3215(e) and Section 3215(b), it only enjoined application and enforcement of Section 3215(c) and (e) to the extent of that link. DEP, therefore, as it did under the Oil and Gas Act of 1984, may continue to evaluate proposed well sites for their impact on public natural resources, just not with respect to the “Section 3215(b) decisional process.” Robinson Twp. I, 83 A.3d at 999. (DEP Br. in Support of Cross-Application for Summary Relief at 13-17.)
Pennsylvania generally follows the rule of stare decisis, under which “a conclusion reached in one matter should be applied to future substantially similar matters.” Ario v. Reliance Ins. Co., 602 Pa. 490, 980 A.2d 588, 597 (2009) (emphasis added). Much of the parties’ respective arguments invites the Court to parse the words used by the Supreme Court in Part V of its opinion in Robinson Twp. I. For purposes of enforcing the Supreme Court’s decision in Robinson Twp. I, however, the conclusion is paramount. As explained by retired Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, former law professor, and World War II veteran the late Honorable Ruggero J. Aldisert:
Stare decisis, the decision of the court, forms the precedent; it is the court’s judgment that controls. We may say that a precedent is a legal precept that attaches a definite detailed consequence to a definite detailed set of facts. Thus, a decision or judgment without an accompanying ratio decidendi may nevertheless serve as precedent. It follows that, although the rationes decidendi are extremely important in determining how courts arrive at their decisions, they should not be confused with actual precedents, qua precedents. We follow the doctrine of stare decisis, not stare ra-tiones decidendi.
Because courts tend to overwrite opinions, it may be often said that a court’s “discussion outran the decision.”
Ruggero J. Aldisert, The Judicial Process: Readings, Materials and Cases 818 (West Publ’g Co. 1984) (1976) (footnotes omitted).
The Supreme Court’s conclusion in Robinson Twp. I — i.e., that of the majority of the Justices — is set forth in Part VI of the opinion, titled “Conclusion and Mandate.” Pertinently, it provides:-
D. The remaining parts of Section 3215(b) are not severable from Section 3215(b)(4) and, as a result, the application or enforcement of Section 3215(b) is enjoined in its entirety. Moreover, Sections 3215(c) and (e), and 3305 through 3309 are not severable to the extent that these provisions implement or enforce those Sections of Act 13 which we have found invalid and, in this respect, their [828]*828application or enforcement is also enjoined.
Robinson Twp. I, 83 A.3d at 1000 (emphasis added).10 To resolve the principal issue in dispute between DEP and PIOGA, we must interpret the above mandate. Simply-stated, PIOGA contends that the mandate enjoins application and enforcement of Section 3215(c) of Act 13 in its entirety. DEP, by contrast, contends that the mandate enjoins application and enforcement of Section 3215(c) only with respect to its application to Section 3215(b) of Act 13, which the Supreme Court enjoined in its entirety.
There is no guiding precedent that governs our resolution of this question, other than this Court’s related duties to follow the mandates of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and to effectuate its deci-sional law. See Walnut St. Assocs., Inc. v. Brokerage Concepts, Inc., 610 Pa. 371,20 A.3d 468, 480 (2011).11 In meeting these duties, we are guided predominantly by the words that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court chose to use in its mandate giving effect to its severability analysis in Part V of its decision in Robinson Twp. I. As noted above, the Supreme Court held that Section 3215(b)(4) of Act 13, relating to waiver of water source setbacks, was unconstitutional.- Concluding that the remaining portions of Section 3215(b), which established those setbacks, were “not sev-erable” from the waiver provision, the Supreme Court’s mandate enjoined application and enforcement of Section 3215(b) “in its entirety.”
The Supreme Court’s mandate with respect to Section 3215(c) and (e) of Act 13 is less definitive. With respect to its conclusion on severability, the Supreme Court held that Section 3215(c) and (e) are not [829]*829severable “to the extent” that they implement or enforce Section 3215(b) of Act 13. With respect to enjoining their application and enforcement, the Supreme Court only did so “in this respect.” To do as PIOGA asks and interpret the Supreme Court’s mandate with respect to Section 3215(c) and (e) as unqualified, like the Supreme Court’s mandate with respect to Section 3215(b), would require this Court to ignore key differences in the words that the Supreme Court chose with respect to these provisions. Just as we are obligated to give meaning to every word in a statute, if possible, so too should we endeavor to give meaning to every word chosen by the Supreme Court when enforcing its mandates. See Commonwealth v. Lobiondo, 501 Pa. 599, 462 A.2d 662, 664 (1983)..
We construe the language in the Supreme Court’s mandate as providing a narrower injunction with respect to the application and enforcement of Section 3215(c) and (e) of Act 13 than with respect to Section 3215(b) of Act 13. Given the definitiveness of the Supreme Court’s mandate with respect to Section 3215(b), we are compelled to construe the added phrases “to the extent” and “in this respect” with respect to the Section 3215(c) and (e) mandate as words of limitation, leaving Section 3215(c) and (e) viable with respect to matters unrelated to Section 3215(b) of Act 13. As noted above, Section 3215(c), like its precursor, Section 205(c) of the Oil and Gas Act of 1984, provides DEP with the authority to consider the impact a well location may have on public resources, such as publicly-owned parks, forests, and game lands; scenic rivers; and historical and archeological sites within the Commonwealth. The only provision of Section 3215(c) linking that subsection to Section 3215(b) is paragraph (6), which provides for DEP to consider the impact of the proposed well on “[sjources used for public drinking supplies in accordance with [Section 3215(b)].” (Emphasis added.) This provision relates to but one of the classes of enumerated public resources that the General Assembly sought to protect in Section 3215(c). The five (5) others bear no relation to the water source' setback and waiver provisions of Section 3215(b). Accordingly, they are unaffected by the Supreme Court’s mandate in Robinson Twp. I. Consistently, it follows that Section 3215(e), which provides the EQB with the duty to develop regulatory criteria, is enjoined only to the extent that the regulatory criteria would bear on the water- source setback and waiver provisions of Section 3215(b).
For the above reasons, we reject PIO-GA’s request.for a declaratory judgment that DEP lacks the authority to apply and enforce in any and all respects Section 3215(c) of Act 13 and to consider the impact that a proposed well site will have on public natural resources. To the contrary, DEP’s authority under Section 3215(c) to consider the impact that a proposed well will have on public resources, those listed and unlisted, is extant, limited only by -the portion of the Supreme Court’s mandate in Robinson Twp. I that enjoins its application and enforcement with respect to the water source setback and waiver provisions set forth in Section 3215(b)..12 In practice, this means that when DEP considers the impact of a proposed well on a source or sources used for public drinking supplies, it is not constrained to do so “in accordance with” enjoined Section [830]*8303215(b).13
B. Regulatory Standard
PIOGA expresses concern that if the Court were to conclude, as we have, that DEP retains some authority under Section 3215(c) to consider and, by conditions, mitigate the impact a proposed well site may have on public resources, there are no standards governing DEP’s exercise of that authority, raising constitutional concerns. We disagree. In Act 13, the General Assembly unambiguously expressed its intent that the EQB promulgate regulatory criteria that DEP must use “for conditioning a well permit based on its impact to the public resources identified under [Section 3215(c)] and for ensuring optimal development of oil and gas resources and respecting property rights of oil and gas owners.” Section 3215(e) of Act 13.14 This specific power and duty to promulgate regulations with respect to public resource considerations for well permits is in addition to the power vested in the ÉQB to promulgate regulations with respect to implementation of Act 13 in general, see 58 Pa. C.S. § 3274, and, as noted above, had no equivalent in the Oil and Gas Act of 1984.15
Any concerns over how DEP exercises its authority under Section 3215(c) of Act 13 with respect to well permit applications, including, but not limited to, whether DEP follows the regulatory criteria established by the EQB, are better left to the administrative agency process, followed by review in our appellate jurisdiction. See Canonsburg Gen. Hosp. v. Dep’t of Health, 492 Pa. 68, 422 A.2d 141 (1980).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, PIO-GA’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied, and DEP’s cross-application for summary relief is granted.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 1st day of September, 2016, the motion for judgment on the [831]*831pleadings of Petitioner Pennsylvania Independent Oñ & Gas Association (PIOGA) is DENIED, and the cross-application for summary relief of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is GRANTED. Judgment is ENTERED in favor of DEP and against PIOGA.