On October 24, 2013, the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied a gas pipeline company’s motions for
partial summary judgment and immediate possession for the construction of a
replacement pipeline in York County. Columbia
Gas Transmission, LLC v. 1.01 Acres, More or Less in Penn Tp., York County, Pa.,
2013 WL 5773414 (M.D. Pa Oct. 24, 2013). Columbia gas sought to replace and
reroute a portion of an existing pipeline that runs through York County because
the current location of the pipeline has become heavily populated. In that
process the pipeline company was unable to obtain the necessary easements from
four landowners, and filed suit against the lands and the owners of the lands,
asserting eminent domain. The pipeline company moved for summary judgment on
the issue of its right to condemn the easements. The court denied the pipeline
company’s motion for summary judgment because the pipeline company failed to
establish the proposed reroute was an authorized “replacement” of an “eligible
facility,” so as to allow automatic authorization under FERC Guidelines
(codified at 18 C.F.R. §§15.203(a)-(b),
157.208(a) & (d)). The court reasoned that it should resolve whether the
pipeline company satisfied regulations by deferring to FERC’s interpretations
of its own regulations. The relevant interpretations provided automatic approval
of reroutes where the new route was “outside but adjacent to” an existing
right-of-way, or “spill over from the original temporary workspace or permanent
right-of-way.” (Emergency Reconstruction,
68 Fed.Reg. at 4122). Here, the court explained the new proposal created “an
entirely new route due to the need to circumvent [a congested area].”
Written by: Garrett Lent, Research Assistant
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center
Nov. 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment