Eminent Domain Public Utility Commission Certificate of Public Convenience Declaration of Taking Pipeline
In Re Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline L.P., PICS Case No. 17-1141 (Pa. Commw. July 3, 2017) Pellegrini, S. J. (21 pages).
Trial court properly denied condemnees' preliminary objections to pipeline company's declaration of taking because the court had decided that company had a CPC, company was a public utility regulated by the PUC and was authorized to exercise eminent domain and condemnees' notice argument failed because notice was provided to the only party tasked with warranting and defending the alleged and unrecorded bridle path easement. Affirmed.
Pipeline company filed a declaration of taking pursuant to 26 Pa.C.S. 302 and 15 Pa.C.S. 1511 seeking to condemn a 0.08acre permanent pipeline easement and a 0.10 acre temporary workspace easement on condemnees' property. Condemnees filed preliminary objections arguing that company could not exercise eminent domain powers because it was not a public utility corporation, it needed a CPC for the pipeline and the pipeline's primary purpose was not intrastate, did not provide a public benefit and was not necessary to meet public needs. They also contended that the notice of taking was defective. While the case was pending, the court, in In re Sunoco Pipeline, L.P., 143, A.3d 1000, decided that company had a CPC that applied to the pipeline, that company was a public utility regulated by the PUC and authorized to exercise eminent domain and that the eminent domain code did not allow the common pleas court to review the public need for a proposed public utility service that had been authorized by the PUC. The trial court relied on that case to deny condemnees' preliminary objections. Condemnees appealed.
Condemnees argued that while a property owner could not challenge the PUCS's determination of "public need" for a service, an owner could challenge whether a specific taking purportedly made for that service carried out a public purpose. The court agreed but found that condemnees' arguments did not raise the issue of whether the specific taking was for a public purpose but asserted that the pipeline itself did not serve a public purpose and that its primary and paramount purpose was not intrastate. Those issues were resolved in In re Sunoco Pipeline, L.P.
Condemnees also asserted that the notice of taking was defective because a pre-existing bridle path easement meant that the entire township community should have been notified of the condemnation. The court found that the notice was not deficient because it provided notice to the only party tasked with warranting and defending the alleged and unrecorded bridle path easement.
A concurring opinion emphasized that In re Sunoco Pipeline, L.P., controlled the outcome of this case but noted that the judge remained steadfast in her dissenting opinion in that case that Sunoco failed to obtain the required CPC and lacked the statutory authorization necessary to condemn private property.