Mike Faherty

About Mike Faherty

This author has not yet filled in any details.
So far Mike Faherty has created 27 blog entries.

Transcource – Independence Energy Connection

The proposed route of the Transcource proposed electrical transmission has been determined. Transcource is now expected to attempt to purchase easements. Landowners should be aware that eminent domain damages are based on harm to the entire property, not just the land contained within the easement(s). Some transmission line companies intentionally minimize damages by appraising incorrect property rights.
Transource settles on proposed power line route through York County
An operator of competitive wholesale electricity and its contractor have notified York County property owners of the final route of a proposed two-state transmission line it intends to submit to utility regulators in Pennsylvania and Maryland.

PJM Interconnection hired Transource Energy last year to build the $320 million “market efficiency” project, known as the “Independence Energy Connection.”

The east segment of the project includes approximately 16 miles of new overhead electric transmission line that will connect a new substation in Lower Chanceford Township to the existing Conastone Substation, near Norrisville in Harford County, Maryland.

There also is a […]

By |October 19th, 2017|Categories: Condemnation, Electric Transmission, Eminent domain|

Atlantic Sunrise Approval

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has issued the final approval for the pipeline which is now under construction. Just compensation issues remain for some property owners.
Regulators OK Atlantic Sunrise pipeline
Federal regulators have given final approval to a company planning a contested $3 billion pipeline to carry natural gas from northeastern Pennsylvania to Southern states.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued the notice on Friday for a 197-mile stretch of the Atlantic Sunrise pipeline in Pennsylvania.

Climate activists, including a group of nuns who allowed activists to build an outdoor chapel on the proposed pipeline route, had challenged the project.

Christopher Stockton, a spokesman for parent company Williams Partners, says work likely will begin the week of Sept. 25. The contractor needs time to prepare the site.

Lancaster Against Pipelines, the activist group that built the chapel, has vowed to protect the structure.

– Associated Press

By |October 12th, 2017|Categories: Condemnation, Eminent domain, Pipeline Construction, Property Rights|

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Denial

On December 29, 2016 our Pennsylvania Supreme court refused to hear the property owners’ appeal of the Commonwealth Court decision of Martin et. al. v. Sunoco Pipeline. The Martin decision had approved the use of eminent domain for the Mariner East 2 pipelines. The Martin case had involved three properties. Owners of one of the properties settled before the Supreme Court decision. The approval of use of eminent domain is final and binding concerning the other two properties in that case.

Other cases remain on appeal. To the extent that those cases involve different issues and evidence, those cases preserve some hope that eminent domain would be eventually denied because the public is not the “primary and paramount beneficiary” of the project.

By |January 4th, 2017|Categories: Eminent domain, Pipeline Construction|

Mariner East 2 Pipeline Risks

Dr. Kirk Jalbert has authored an analysis of the explosion risks of the Mariner East proposal of Sunoco Pipeline. His analysis of a 20 inch diameter pipeline transporting ethane would have a blast radius of 1,171 feet. He estimated 105,419 people to live within the Mariner East 2’s thermal impact zone. The threat to these individuals could be a significant consideration as to eminent domain power and who would be the primary and paramount beneficiary of such a pipeline.
Mariner East 2: At-Risk Schools and Populations
Written by: Kirk Jalbert, Manager of Community-Based Research & Engagement
with technical assistance from Seth Kovnant | Published in FracTracker Alliance

In September, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) rejected a number of permits for wetland crossings and sedimentation control that were required for Sunoco Pipeline’s proposed “Mariner East 2” pipeline. According to Sunoco, the proposed Mariner East 2 is a $2.5 billion, 350-mile-long pipeline that would be one of the largest pipeline construction projects in […]

By |December 14th, 2016|Categories: Eminent domain, Pipeline Construction, Property Rights|

Mariner East 2 Pipeline Again Delayed

Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P. / Sunoco Pipeline has announced a delay in the start up (operation) of the Mariner East 2 proposed pipeline. Sunoco has now announced a plan of start up in the 3rd quarter of 2017. Sunoco attributed the delay to the Pa. Department of Environmental Protection permit process. Sunoco continues to attempt to obtain property rights from owners while eminent domain litigation continues in county and appellate courts.

Sunoco blames permit delays for later Mariner East 2 pipeline start-up
Written by: by Andrew Maykuth, Staff Writer / philly.com

Sunoco Logistics Partners LP said Thursday that it is pushing back next year’s start-up of the contentious Mariner East 2 pipeline to deal with unanticipated delays in obtaining permits from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

The 300-mile pipeline, which would deliver natural-gas liquids such as ethane and propane from the Marcellus Shale region to Sunoco’s Marcus Hook terminal, has aroused opposition from some adjoining property owners, as well as from environmental activists.

Michael […]

By |November 18th, 2016|Categories: Condemnation, Eminent domain, In the News, Pipeline Construction|

Township Proclamation Concerning Sunoco Pipeline

Thornbury Township in Delaware County, Pennsylvania has issued a Proclamation expressing great concern about Sunoco Pipeline use of Mariner East 1 and the Mariner East 2 proposal.

Thornbury Hazardous Liquids Proclamation

By |September 28th, 2016|Categories: Eminent domain, Pipeline Construction, Property Rights|

Faherty Law Firm Defends Property Rights in Commonwealth Court

Lawyer tries to stop seizure of farmland
A July Cumberland County Court ruling gave Sunoco Pipeline the go-ahead to use eminent domain to take a portion of Upper Frankford Township farmland for the Mariner East II pipeline.

But on Friday, the landowners’ attorney filed notice that he is appealing the decision to Commonwealth Court. Property owners Rolfe Blume, John Perry and Alan Waters were in court in February, arguing through their attorney, Mike Faherty, that Sunoco Pipeline does not have the authority to take parts of their land.

Faherty told the court that under state law, eminent domain cannot be used for private enterprise, even if there is an element of public use.

The pipeline would move liquid natural gas from Ohio to the Delaware River for shipment overseas, making it subject to federal regulations and not the state regulations that allow for eminent domain, he said.

But judges in Huntingdon and Washington counties, as well in another Cumberland County case with different property owners, […]

By |August 5th, 2016|Categories: Condemnation, Eminent domain, Pipeline Construction, Property Rights|

Williams Company Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline Faces Opposition

Opposition to the Atlantic Sunrise pipeline has focused on the absence of a public need for the pipeline. Dr. Dennis Witmer has supplied evidence refuting the asserted public need for Atlantic Sunrise. He also testified to the absence of a public need for the Sunoco Pipeline Mariner East 2 pipeline. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission continues to evaluate the Atlantic Sunrise proposal. Faherty Law Firm represents many property owners threatened by the Atlantic Sunrise proposal.
Battle’s new front: pipelines
As low prices for natural gas cause drillers to pull up stakes, companies are building conduits to move fuels to ports. Midstate residents are trying to stop the projects.

Written by: Colin Deppen | Patriot News

The energy boom of the last decade has, in the last year, grown eerily silent.

The drilling of new wells has slowed with the fuel supply outpacing demand and low prices dogging the market.

In response, drillers have moved out of Pennsylvania towns, leaving behind empty rental homes and ancillary businesses […]

By |June 21st, 2016|Categories: Eminent domain, Pipeline Construction, Property Rights|

Threatened by Eminent Domain?

The US News and World Report has provided sound guidance for those threatened by eminent domain.
What to Do When You’re a Homeowner Threatened With Eminent Domain
Take steps to protect your rights as a property owner so you’re not left out in the cold.
You worked hard to become a homeowner, and it’s something you’re proud of. Between mortgage payments and the improvements you’ve always wanted to make, you work even harder to make it the home of your dreams – and to keep it that way.

But in the case of eminent domain, it’s out of your hands. A clause in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution limits the government’s right to take private property for public use by requiring the property owner be given “just compensation” in return.

Eminent domain and what the government – either federal, state or local – has deemed “public use” has been a hot-button topic for years. While the taking of property in whole to build a […]

By |March 30th, 2016|Categories: Condemnation, Eminent domain, Pipeline Construction, Property Rights|

Sunoco Pipeline Rejects Negotiations

Sunoco Pipeline has repeatedly rejected efforts to negotiate easement terms for the Mariner East 2 pipeline. Mike Faherty recently presented a counter-offer with proposed easement terms for a Lebanon County property owner. Sunoco rejected the counter-offer and refused to negotiate on easement terms or financial compensation. Instead, Sunoco Pipeline continues to attempt to obtain rulings from Pennsylvania judges to approve Pennsylvania eminent domain power for the interstate pipeline. Litigation is pending in multiple counties and Sunoco Pipeline has not obtained the requested eminent domain power.

By |September 29th, 2015|Categories: Pipeline Construction, Property Rights|