In Re: Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. ~ Appeal of: C.S. Katz, Jr. and K.M. Katz
165 A.3d 1044
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. filed a declaration of taking seeking a permanent pipeline easement and temporary workspace easement on property in Delaware County to construct a segment of the Mariner East 2 pipeline.
- Sunoco operates existing intrastate pipeline services and holds certificates of public convenience (CPCs) from the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) for related services; Sunoco asserted ME2 is an authorized expansion.
- Condemnees challenged the taking via preliminary objections, arguing Sunoco is not a public utility authorized to exercise eminent domain for ME2, that ME2 primarily serves non‑public/interstate purposes, and that notice was defective given a preexisting bridle path easement.
- This Court previously decided In re Sunoco Pipeline, L.P., concluding Sunoco is regulated as a public utility, ME2 falls within its CPC authorization, and courts cannot revisit PUC determinations of public need in eminent domain proceedings.
- The trial court denied Condemnees’ preliminary objections without a hearing, relying on the Commonwealth Court’s In re Sunoco decision; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sunoco is a public utility empowered to condemn for ME2 | Sunoco lacks the requisite PUC authority/CPC to exercise eminent domain for ME2 | Sunoco is a PUC‑regulated public utility and ME2 is an authorized expansion under existing CPCs | Held: Sunoco is a public utility with eminent domain power for ME2 (In re Sunoco controls) |
| Whether a court may revisit PUC’s finding of public need for the service in an eminent domain action | Condemnees argue the specific taking can be challenged as not serving a public purpose or being unnecessary | Sunoco: PUC already determined public need via CPCs; courts may not collateral attack PUC findings | Held: Property owners may challenge a taking that is for a private purpose, but not the PUC’s determination of public need; here challenges were collateral and precluded by In re Sunoco |
| Whether Condemnees were entitled to an evidentiary hearing to show the taking was excessive (because ME1 allegedly suffices) | Seek hearing/evidence that ME1 meets intrastate demand so ME2 taking is excessive | Sunoco: This is a collateral attack on public need/necessity resolved by PUC CPCs; no hearing required on that basis | Held: Denial of hearing affirmed; objections sought to relitigate public need and were precluded |
| Whether notice of taking was defective given the preexisting bridle path easement | Condemnees: Sunoco failed to notify entire township/community, thereby giving defective notice | Sunoco: Notice to Condemnees (the only party obligated to warrant/defend the unrecorded bridle path) satisfied statutory requirements | Held: Notice was not defective; Condemnees lacked standing to assert broader township notice and Sunoco’s notice was adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Middletown Township v. Lands of Stone, 939 A.2d 331 (Pa. 2007) (public use/purpose requires public to be primary beneficiary)
- In re Sunoco Pipeline, L.P., 143 A.3d 1000 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (PUC CPC findings on public need cannot be collaterally attacked in eminent domain proceedings)
- Chester Water Authority v. Public Utility Commission, 868 A.2d 384 (Pa. 2005) (applicant for CPC must demonstrate public need or demand)
- Belovsky v. Redevelopment Authority, 54 A.2d 277 (Pa. 1947) (courts should look to the real or fundamental purpose of a taking)
- Duquesne Light Co. v. Upper St. Clair Township, 105 A.2d 287 (Pa. 1954) (PUC’s role in determining necessity/propriety for eminent domain authority)