In Re: Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline L.P. of Permanent and Temporary Rights of Way and Easements ~ Appeal of: Andover HOA Inc.
1780 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 24, 2017Background
- Sunoco Pipeline L.P. filed a Declaration of Taking to condemn ~4.38 acres of Traymore/Andover open-space in Thornbury Twp. for the Mariner East 2 NGL pipeline; Andover (condemnee) was allowed to participate.
- Andover filed Preliminary Objections arguing Sunoco lacked eminent domain power for Mariner East 2, was not a public utility for this service, public need was not shown, CPCs did not cover Mariner East 2, bond was insufficient, and local open-space rules would be violated.
- This Court had decided many identical issues in In re Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. (Sunoco I), holding Sunoco is a PUC‑certificated public utility, CPCs establish public need, and Sunoco is clothed with eminent domain power.
- The trial court overruled Andover’s Preliminary Objections without a hearing, relying on Sunoco I; Andover sought reconsideration and appealed.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court on all issues except it vacated the trial court’s ruling that Sunoco’s posted bond was adequate and remanded for an evidentiary hearing limited to bond sufficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public need / eminent domain authority | Andover: Mariner East 2 not needed for Commonwealth NGL demand; existing capacity suffices; PUC approvals insufficient to satisfy public‑benefit requirement post‑Robinson | Sunoco: PUC issued CPCs showing public need; Sunoco is a PUC‑certified public utility clothed with eminent domain power per statute and PUC orders | Court: Followed Sunoco I — PUC CPCs are prima facie determinations of public need; trial court cannot relitigate PUC public‑need findings; Sunoco has eminent domain power |
| Procedural due process / notice to landowners re: PUC proceedings | Andover: PUC procedures excluded potentially affected landowners; they received no direct notice or opportunity to contest use of eminent domain | Sunoco: Issues not raised in Preliminary Objections; PUC procedures lawfully determine certificatory matters | Court: Claims waived for failure to raise in Preliminary Objections; cannot consider on appeal |
| Natural resources trustee | Andover: No entity serving as trustee of Commonwealth natural resources for Mariner East 2 | Sunoco: Issue not raised at preliminary‑objection stage; irrelevant to CPC/eminent domain determination | Court: Issue waived for failure to raise in Preliminary Objections |
| Bond sufficiency / excessive taking hearings | Andover: Bond posted ($23,000) insufficient security; also sought excessive‑taking hearing | Sunoco: Bond based on professional appraisal and surety; trial court may decide on pleadings when no factual dispute | Court: Excessive‑taking claim waived (not raised in preliminary objections); but bond‑sufficiency objection was properly raised and trial court erred by resolving it without an evidentiary hearing — remand for limited hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline, L.P., 143 A.3d 1000 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (holding PUC CPCs establish public‑need and a public utility’s eminent domain power)
- Robinson Township v. Commonwealth, 147 A.3d 536 (Pa. 2016) (reaffirming that eminent domain for private corporations requires primary public benefit)
- Fairview Water Co. v. Public Utility Comm’n, 502 A.2d 162 (Pa. 1985) (PUC determines necessity of service; scope, validity, and damages addressed by courts)
- In re Redevelopment Authority of Altoona, 254 A.2d 653 (Pa. 1969) (condemnee entitled to hearing when bond sufficiency is challenged)
- Milford Traumbauersville Area Sewer Auth. v. Approximately 0.753 Acres of Land, 358 A.2d 450 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976) (reiterating right to hearing on bond sufficiency)
- York City Redevelopment Auth. v. Ohio Blenders, Inc., 956 A.2d 1052 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (trial court’s bond‑amount/sufficiency determination reviewed only for abuse of discretion)