Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin April 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 8 Casey and Eric Grote (collectively, the "Opponents") filed a complaint in trial court, which alleged that Sunoco's proposed ME2 pipeline, which was planned to run through the Township, including through residential zoning districts, violated the Township's 2014 Ordinance. Sunoco responded, arguing that the PUC had exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of public utilities and public utility service —such as Sunoco's ME2 pipeline, here, and that Pennsylvania's Public Utility Code preempted the Township's 2014 Ordinance. Agreeing with Sunoco, the trial court held that the Township's power to regulate the location of the ME2 pipeline was preempted by the PUC's authority under the Public Utility Code. The Opponents appealed. Among other things, the Opponents argued that there was no conflict between the Township's 2014 Ordinance and the Public Utility Code because the PUC did not have any regulations governing pipeline location. DECISION: Judgment of Court of Common Pleas affirmed. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that the PUC's authority under the Public Utility Code preempted and precluded the Township's 2014 Ordinance from prohibiting the ME2 pipeline in the Township's residential districts. In so holding, the court explained that there are "three generally recognized forms of preemption: (1) express or explicit preemption, where the statute includes a preemption clause, the language of which specifically bars local authorities from acting on a specific subject mat- ter; (2) conflict preemption, where the local enactment irreconcilably conflicts with or stands as an obstacle to the execution of the full purposes of the statute; and (3) field preemption, where analysis of the entire statute reveals the General Assembly's implicit intent to occupy the field completely and to permit no local enactments". Here, the court found there was no express preemption provision in the Public Utility Code. However, upon "careful review" of the Public Utility Code, the court concluded that Pennsylvania's General As- sembly "intended the PUC to occupy the field of public utility regula- tion, in the absence of an express grant of authority to the contrary." (See 66 Pa. C.S. §§ 309, 315, 331, 504, 505, 506, 701, 1501, 1504, 1505). Despite concluding there was field preemption here, the court also went on to conclude that "conflict preemption also support[ed] the trial court's decision as to preemption [of the Township 2014 Ordinance] by the Public Utility Code." The court explained how conflict preemption may be applicable, including that "a local ordinance will be invalidated if it stands as an obstacle to the execution of the full purposes and objec- tives of a statutory enactment of the General Assembly." © 2018 Thomson Reuters