Sunoco Pipeline L.P. v. Teter
2016 Ohio 7073
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Sunoco Pipeline L.P. (Appellee) sought to appropriate an easement across Carol Teter Trustee’s property to build the Mariner East 2 pipeline to carry fractionated products (pure propane and pure butane) from Ohio fractionation plants to the East Coast.
- Sunoco could not obtain a voluntary easement and filed a petition for appropriation/condemnation; cases were consolidated and tried in Harrison County Common Pleas Court.
- Key factual points: the pipeline would carry pure propane and pure butane derived from Utica/Marcellus wet gas via fractionation; Sunoco conducted an open season and offered capacity to shippers (common-carrier evidence).
- Trial court held (1) pure propane and pure butane qualify as "petroleum" under R.C. 1723.01, (2) Sunoco is a common carrier under R.C. 1723.08, and (3) the taking was necessary and for public use; compensation was later settled.
- Teter appealed, raising statutory-definition, common-carrier, necessity/public-use, vagueness, and burden-of-proof challenges; the Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sunoco) | Defendant's Argument (Teter) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pure propane and pure butane are "petroleum" under R.C. 1723.01 | Statutory and administrative definitions (R.C. chapters, Ohio Admin. Code) and industry/EIA usage treat natural gas liquids and fractionated components (propane, butane) as petroleum | "Petroleum" should be strictly read as the historical/common 1953 meaning (complex liquid mixtures); pure gases and single hydrocarbons are not "petroleum" | Court: Propane and butane derived from fractionation are "petroleum" for R.C. 1723.01 (industry/modern statutory meaning controls) |
| Whether Sunoco qualifies as a common carrier under R.C. 1723.08 | Sunoco is organized to transport petroleum, offered capacity via open season, and retained at least 10% capacity for public shippers | If propane/butane are not "petroleum," Sunoco cannot be a common carrier under the statute | Court: Sunoco is a common carrier (because propane/butane are "petroleum") |
| Whether the appropriation was necessary and for public use | Pipeline is reasonably convenient/useful to the public, supports regional shale development, transports heating fuel and petrochemical feedstocks, and Sunoco’s evidence creates a rebuttable presumption of necessity | Uses claimed are speculative; pipeline is interstate with no Ohio off-ramps so benefits to Ohio are indirect/economic and insufficient for public use | Court: Taking was necessary and for public use; rebuttable presumption not overcome; pipeline use is public (common-carrier context) |
| Whether defining "petroleum" to include these products renders R.C. 1723.01 unconstitutionally vague | N/A (Sunoco argued statutory definitions and industry usage are clear) | Inclusion of component molecules makes the statute vague and removes meaningful limits on eminent-domain power | Court: Argument waived; in any event the court rejected the claim and found no plain-error basis to address it |
Key Cases Cited
- Norwood v. Horney, 110 Ohio St.3d 353 (Ohio 2006) (public-use doctrine requires flexibility; economic benefit alone is insufficient)
- Ohio Power Co. v. Deist, 154 Ohio St. 473 (Ohio 1951) (appropriation statutes are strictly construed but must allow reasonable constructions in light of scientific/technical progress)
- Ohio River Pipe Line, LLC v. Gutheil, 144 Ohio App.3d 694 (Ohio App. 2001) (other statutory definitions may be used to interpret "petroleum" for eminent-domain statutes)
- Ohio River Pipe Line LLC v. Henley, 144 Ohio App.3d 703 (Ohio App. 2001) (similar holding on interpreting "petroleum")
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (plain-error doctrine in civil cases is disfavored and applies only in exceptional circumstances)