In Re: Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. -- Appeal of: R. Blume and D. Blume
In Re: Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. -- Appeal of: R. Blume and D. Blume - 1306 C.D. 2016
Pa. Commw. Ct.May 26, 2017Background
- Sunoco Pipeline L.P. (Condemnor) filed a Declaration of Taking to acquire a permanent easement (1.92 acres) and temporary workspace (0.97 acres) across the Blumes’ property for the Mariner East 2 pipeline project.
- Mariner East 2 would add mainly underground pipelines parallel to existing Mariner East 1 to transport natural gas liquids (propane, ethane) including intrastate shipments prompted by increased demand.
- The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) issued Certificates of Public Convenience (CPCs) and orders authorizing intrastate service and finding the project in the public interest; tariffs for intrastate service were approved.
- Condemnees (Rolfe and Doris Blume) filed preliminary objections challenging: federal preemption/interstate status, Sunoco’s public-utility status and eminent-domain power, public need for the second pipeline, and adequacy of corporate authorization and bond.
- The trial court overruled the objections; on appeal the Commonwealth Court affirmed, relying substantially on the court’s prior en banc decision in In Re: Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline, L.P., 143 A.3d 1000 (Pa. Cmwlth.).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Blume) | Defendant's Argument (Sunoco) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pipeline is solely interstate (federal preemption) | Mariner East 2 is purely interstate and therefore exclusively regulated by FERC | Pipeline provides both interstate and intrastate service; PUC orders show intrastate aspects | Court: Not exclusively interstate; both FERC and PUC regulatory jurisdiction apply (Sunoco I controls) |
| Whether Sunoco is a "public utility corporation" with eminent-domain power | Sunoco is a private enterprise (or barred by prior York County decision) and thus lacks eminent-domain power; PRPA bars taking for private enterprise | Sunoco is regulated by PUC (and FERC), holds CPCs, and qualifies as a public utility under the BCL; PRPA excludes public utilities | Court: Sunoco is a public utility under the Code and BCL; PRPA exception applies; collateral estoppel inapplicable to Loper; eminent-domain power upheld |
| Whether there is a public need for the second pipeline | Existing Mariner East 1 capacity suffices; courts should review need before allowing condemnation | PUC has determined public need via CPCs and orders; courts may not reweigh PUC findings | Court: Public-need determinations are for PUC; CPCs are conclusive evidence of need; courts cannot revisit (citing Fairview and Sunoco I) |
| Whether procedural requirements (corporate resolution, bond) were met | Corporate resolutions did not validly authorize the taking; posted bond was inadequate | Resolutions of the relevant Sunoco entities authorized eminent-domain actions for Mariner East 2; trial court found posted bond sufficient based on evidence | Court: Trial court’s factual findings upheld; corporate resolutions satisfied statutory form; $13,000 bond not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In Re: Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline, L.P., 143 A.3d 1000 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (en banc) (held PUC and FERC share regulatory authority and recognized CPCs as conclusive evidence of public need)
- Fairview Water Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 502 A.2d 162 (Pa. 1985) (courts defer to PUC on determinations of public need)
- Chester Water Auth. v. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 868 A.3d 384 (Pa. 2005) (CPC applicants must demonstrate public need)
- Robinson Twp. v. Commonwealth, 147 A.3d 536 (Pa. 2016) (distinguished; confirms public utilities retain eminent-domain authority despite limits on private-corporation takings)
- Aitkenhead v. Borough of West View, 442 A.2d 364 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (principle against collateral attacks on final agency orders)