Monthly Archives: July 2015

Sunoco Pipeline Files for Eminent Domain

Faherty Law Firm is presenting multiple defenses to the request for eminent domain power by Sunoco Pipeline.

Sunoco Pipeline seeking more property in Mt. Pleasant, Independence and Hopewell townships

By Francesca Sacco, Staff writer,

Sunoco Pipeline LP of Pennsylvania has again filed eminent domain documents in Washington County Court, seeking temporary and permanent rights of way on land in three townships and one borough to move natural gas products as a part of its Mariner East project.

This is the fourth time Sunoco Pipeline filed documents regarding land in and around Mt. Pleasant, Independence and Chartiers townships. The most recent filings Friday also seek land in Hopewell Township and West Middletown. If the petitions are granted, Sunoco Pipeline would permanently acquire 11 acres.

The company filed the eminent domain cases against Rodney Lee and Robin Louise Rohrer of 108 Poplar Road, Avella; John Paul Craig, Frank Stewart Craig and Timothy David Craig of 638 Country Road, Avella; Harry Joseph and Patricia Marie Yevins of 136 Fox Road, Avella; Lynn Foltz and Gordon T. Lowry, who live in Canton Township but own land in Hopewell Township; and Edward J. Thomas III and Bonnie W. Thomas of Dairy Road, Mt. Pleasant Township.

Hershey-based attorney Mike Faherty said he’s representing all of the landowners in this matter expect Foltz and Lowry, and intends to file objections. Faherty also represents other area landowners in their fight to protect their property against Sunoco. He said that on July 1, visiting Senior Judge William R. Nalitz stopped Sunoco Pipeline’s effort to condemn property of Martha J. and Cary Dwayne Cowden, Paradise Hills LLC and Kenneth Lee and Ann Marie Taylor. A hearing has been scheduled for Oct. 14.

Sunoco Pipeline asserted that since 2002, it has been regulated by the state Public Utility Commission as a public utility, a status it said the PUC reaffirmed both last year and this year.

In 2012, Sunoco announced the Mariner East pipeline project for “wet” gas products such as propane, ethane and butane, designed to relieve the oversupply of natural gas liquids in the Marcellus and Utica Shale basins and to alleviate supply-side shortages of propane and related products in parts of Pennsylvania and the Northeast. The finished pipeline would stretch between Washington County and Twin Oaks, Delaware County, in the Philadelphia metropolitan area.

The filings stress the difference between an intrastate project – solely within Pennsylvania – and an interstate project that would cross Pennsylvania’s boundaries.

Sunoco Pipeline was unable to reach an agreement with the parties to acquire the easements and has posted bonds totaling $36,000.

A representative from Sunoco Logistics declined to comment.

By |July 31st, 2015|Categories: Pipeline Construction|

Sunoco Again Seeks Eminent Domain Power for Mariner East 2

marinereast2ASunoco Pipeline sought eminent domain power in Washington County via Petitions to Approve a Bond. Mike Faherty represents property owners. The judge stayed, or delayed, the Sunoco effort. He also provided a schedule for Mike Faherty Actions in Equity which could deny the attempt to obtain eminent domain and award costs to be paid by Sunoco Pipeline for the property owners.

Sunoco has responded by recharacterizing the Mariner East 2 Pipeline as now being only within Pennsylvania! Sunoco is attempting a different procedure, the filing of declarations of taking. Mike Faherty is continuing his protection of property owners rights by filing preliminary objections in multiple counties. Property owners served with condemnation documents are encouraged to promptly obtain the legal services of an attorney experienced in protecting property owner rights.



By |July 27th, 2015|Categories: Pipeline Construction|

Sunoco Pipeline Mariner East 2 Pipeline

Sunoco Pipeline has often stated that it has eminent domain power for the Mariner East 2 Pipeline. Faherty Law Firm represented many property owners in 2013 and 2014 against Sunoco Pipeline. That litigation resulted in Mike Faherty’s litigation win against Sunoco Pipeline in the York County case of Loper v. Sunoco. The Judge ruled that Sunoco Pipeline did not have the power of eminent domain for Mariner East 2.

In July of 2015 Sunoco Pipeline appeared in Washington County Court and again requested eminent domain power for the Mariner East 2 Pipeline. Mike Faherty represents many property owners now threatened by the Mariner East 2 Pipeline. He presented written and oral argument that the request for eminent domain power should be denied. Mike argued that the Loper decision serves to prevent Sunoco from again litigating the same issue. Mike also requested the dismissal of the litigation, with payment of the fees and costs of the property owners based on federal, not state, jurisdiction. The Judge has favored the property owners by an order allowing the property owners litigation to move forward, while the request for eminent domain power is stayed, or in other words, on hold.

By |July 24th, 2015|Categories: Pipeline Construction|

Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline

Williams Company has been offering option agreements in the effort to acquire property rights for the Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline. Faherty Law Firm represents many property owners threatened by the pipeline. Mike Faherty has pointed out that the permanent irrevocable options could place and encumbrance, or restriction, on property use for many years without payment of just compensation. Williams refused to compromise on that easement term, but recently reversed its position. Mike Faherty is negotiating easement terms and full just compensation for property owners.

By |July 20th, 2015|Categories: Pipeline Construction|

Sunbury Pipeline

Sunbury Pipeline, LLC has stated it has the power of eminent domain as a public utility corporation under the Pennsylvania Business Corporation Law. Faherty Law Firm represents multiple property owners threatened by the pipeline. Mike Faherty has advised Sunbury Pipeline that the pipeline which is progressing with an application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), is under FERC, not state, jurisdiction. Faherty asserts that the argument for current state eminent domain is misguided. Faherty, noted that the FERC approval of eminent domain power is expected near the end of 2015, but has not yet been provided.

By |July 16th, 2015|Categories: Pipeline Construction|