Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2018

Home

April 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 8 Zoning Bulletin Here, the court found that the Township's 2014 Ordinance was such an obstacle to the execution of the full purpose of the Public Utility Code. The court explained that the policy purpose of state-wide regula- tion under the Public Utility Code was "to commit the regulation of public utility facilities to a state-wide commission, the PUC, because the rendition of efficient service to the public transcends the legitimate objectives of any one of the political subdivisions of the Commonwealth." In addition to the policy conflict of state-wide regula- tion versus local regulation of public utility services and facilities, the court noted that there was a "practical conflict" here as well: the 2014 Ordinance, prohibiting pipelines in residential zones, including the proposed ME2 pipeline, which paralleled and was mostly within the existing right of way of the ME1 pipeline, thus conflicted with full use of a pre-existing pipeline right of way. In reaching its conclusion as to conflict preemption of the Township 2014 Ordinance, the court rejected the Opponents' argument that there was no conflict since the PUC did not have any regulations governing pipeline location. The court found it "irrelevant" that the PUC had no regulations covering pipeline siting. Rather, the court found that the PUC also exercised its authority in orders, such as those orders it had issued that governed the ME2 pipeline. Moreover, the court noted that the PUC regulates the intrastate shipment of natural gas and petroleum products through pipelines, though not the actual physical pipelines conveying those liquids. In regulating such pipeline transportation ser- vices, the court found that the PUC determined whether Sunoco's ser- vice and facilities were "unreasonable, unsafe, inadequate, insufficient, or unreasonably discriminatory, or otherwise in violation of the Public Utility Code. 66 Pa. C.S. §§ 701 (entitled `Complaints'), 1505(a) (entitled `Proper service and facilities established on complaint')." See also: Duquesne Light Co. v. Borough of Monroeville, 449 Pa. 573, 298 A.2d 252, 98 Pub. Util. Rep. 3d (PUR) 97 (1972). Case Note: The Opponents had also alleged that the Township's duties to protect the pub- lic natural resources, as embodied under the Environmental Rights Amend- ment ("ERA") to the Pennsylvania Constitution, defeated preemption of the Township's 2014 Ordinance. The court rejected that argument, noting that it failed to address how the 2014 Ordinance impacted laws involving the regula- tion of public utilities or how the 2014 Ordinance furthered Township duties under the ERA or how the 2014 Ordinance related to conserving public natu- ral resources, especially when the ME2 pipeline would be placed in or near the pre-existing ME1 pipeline right of way. 8 © 2018 Thomson Reuters