185 A.3d 478
Pa. Commw. Ct.2018Background
- Clean Air Council and two members sued Sunoco seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent Sunoco from using eminent domain for the Mariner East pipelines (ME1 and ME2); plaintiffs are not condemnees in the filed declarations of taking.
- Plaintiffs alleged: Sunoco is not a PUC‑regulated public utility (interstate vs. intrastate); Sunoco lacks required certificates of public convenience (CPCs); takings violate federal and state Takings Clauses; due process violations from lack of notice; and Sunoco breached duties under Article I, §27 (Environmental Rights Amendment) as a trustee.
- The trial court denied Sunoco’s summary judgment motion and certified four controlling legal questions under 42 Pa. C.S. §702(b); this Court accepted interlocutory review and added the question whether Sunoco is “the Commonwealth” for Article I, §27 purposes.
- This Court concluded the Eminent Domain Code provides the exclusive procedure to challenge the power/right to condemn and related constitutional claims (Counts I–VI), because such claims must be raised via preliminary objections in the common pleas court where the property is located after a declaration of taking.
- The Article I, §27 claim (Count VII) remained: plaintiffs allege Sunoco, by exercising governmental powers as a PUC‑authorized public utility, may owe trustee duties under the Environmental Rights Amendment—this Court held it has exclusive original jurisdiction over that claim if premised on Sunoco acting as the Commonwealth, and remanded to transfer the remaining claim to this Court’s original jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiffs' Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Counts I–II (interstate status; lack of CPCs) are cognizable in trial court or are collateral attacks on PUC determinations | Plaintiffs: courts of common pleas can adjudicate a utility’s authority to condemn; they challenge Sunoco’s right to condemn (not the PUC orders themselves) | Sunoco: issues already decided in Martin; plaintiffs’ claims are collateral attacks on PUC CPCs and thus not properly litigated here | Held: Counts I–II implicate the power/right to condemn and must be raised under the Eminent Domain Code via preliminary objections in the county where property lies; trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Counts I–II |
| Whether Counts III–IV (federal/state takings) can proceed in trial court | Plaintiffs: takings are not purely legal; they seek to show condemnations lack a public purpose and thus are unconstitutional | Sunoco: only condemnees may raise these challenges in condemnation proceedings; Martin and Code procedures control | Held: Takings challenges that question the power/right to condemn are within the Eminent Domain Code’s exclusive procedures; trial court lacked jurisdiction over Counts III–IV |
| Whether Counts V–VI (due process notice) are cognizable in trial court | Plaintiffs: alleged lack of notice of CPCs deprived them of due process and ability to participate in PUC proceedings; this is collateral to condemnation and can be heard in equity | Sunoco: due process claims attack PUC process/CPCs and fall within PUC/exclusive procedures | Held: Because these due process claims effectively challenge CPC validity and thus Sunoco’s power to condemn, they must be raised under the Eminent Domain Code; trial court lacked jurisdiction over Counts V–VI |
| Whether Count VII (Article I, §27) belongs in trial court and whether plaintiffs have standing | Plaintiffs: Sunoco’s exercise of eminent domain implicates trustee duties under §27 and plaintiffs (members near route) have standing | Sunoco: §27 claims implicate Commonwealth action and belong in this Court’s original jurisdiction; only condemnees can challenge takings | Held: §27 imposes duties on the Commonwealth as trustee; Plaintiffs’ §27 claim rests on theory that Sunoco is acting as the Commonwealth — this Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over that claim; plaintiffs (and Clean Air Council) have standing to pursue §27 claim because members allege concrete risk from the project |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline L.P. v. Martin, 143 A.3d 1000 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (Mariner East condemnation litigation decision)
(establishes PUC regulation/condemnation issues resolved in earlier condemnation litigation) - Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation v. Commonwealth, 161 A.3d 911 (Pa. 2017)
(interprets scope of Environmental Rights Amendment and trustee duties) - Robinson Township v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 901 (Pa. 2013)
(standing for §27 challenges; facial and pre‑enforcement review principles) - Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Public Utility Commission, 991 A.2d 1021 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010)
(PUC’s CPC inquiry does not decide a utility’s power to condemn; common pleas decide condemnation issues) - Middletown Township v. Lands of Stone, 939 A.2d 331 (Pa. 2007)
(takings/public‑purpose analysis under eminent domain context) - Vartan v. Reed, 514 A.2d 646 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986)
(equity cannot enjoin a condemnation; preliminary objections are exclusive method to challenge right to condemn) - Condemnation of Legislative Route 201 (Becker), 349 A.2d 819 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975)
(procedural/design‑phase claims are collateral to condemnation and not proper as preliminary objections)