Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. 1.010 acres, more or less in Penn Township, York County, Pennsylvania, located on Tax ID 440002800240000000, owned by Douglas W. Hilyard and Tessa J. Hillard
4:13-cv-00786
M.D. Penn.Oct 24, 2013Background
- Columbia Gas (an interstate pipeline company subject to FERC jurisdiction) seeks to replace and reroute a portion of its Line 1655 in York County, PA to avoid a now-populated area.
- The proposed replacement route diverts the pipeline up to about a quarter-mile from the existing right-of-way; Columbia negotiated easements with many landowners but four landowner couples refused.
- Columbia filed eminent-domain suits in federal court and moved for partial summary judgment that it has the regulatory authority to undertake the relocation and for immediate possession of the needed easements.
- Columbia relies on its 1983 FERC certificate and Part 157 (Subpart F) regulations, arguing the project is an automatically authorized “replacement” or otherwise an eligible activity that permits condemnation under 15 U.S.C. § 717f(h).
- The core factual dispute is whether the new route is a permissible “replacement” or otherwise within the automatic authorization in Part 157, given the route’s substantial relocation (not merely adjacent or spilling over existing workspace).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposed rerouting qualifies as an automatically authorized “replacement” under Part 157/Subpart F | Columbia: project is a “replacement” of eligible facilities because it does not meet §2.55(b) location/work-space requirements, so Subpart F authority applies broadly | Landowners: relocation ~1/4 mile is not a true “replacement”; Subpart F was not intended to permit extensive rerouting away from existing right-of-way | Court: Denied — such a substantial reroute is not an automatically authorized “replacement” under Part 157 as reasonably interpreted by FERC |
| Whether Columbia has the threshold right to condemn easements (precondition for immediate possession) | Columbia: automatic regulatory authorization (certificate + Part 157) gives right to condemn under 15 U.S.C. §717f(h) | Landowners: absent automatic regulatory authorization, Columbia has not shown entitlement to condemn right now | Court: Denied — Columbia failed to establish right to condemn as a matter of law |
| Whether Columbia is entitled to immediate possession of easements | Columbia: immediate possession appropriate to commence construction after showing condemnation right | Landowners: immediate possession improper without showing right to condemn and other factors considered | Court: Denied — because Columbia did not establish the right to condemn, immediate possession is not warranted |
| Whether the project could qualify as a “miscellaneous rearrangement” (alternative regulatory category) | Columbia disavowed this characterization at oral argument | Landowners: argued project might not fit that category either; court noted ambiguity and declined to reach issue because Columbia disavowed it | Court: Did not decide — Columbia disavowed relying on this category, so court did not rule on it |
Key Cases Cited
- Decker v. Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr., 133 S. Ct. 1326 (2013) (courts generally defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations unless plainly erroneous)
- E. Tennessee Natural Gas Co. v. Sage, 361 F.3d 808 (4th Cir. 2004) (right to condemn is a threshold requirement for immediate possession)
- Anchorage Assoc. v. Virgin Islands Bd. of Tax Review, 922 F.2d 168 (3d Cir. 1990) (procedural consequence of failing to respond to summary judgment materials)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standards)