Pipeline service operator sought to condemn property, and condemnees filed objections.
The Court of Common Pleas overruled the objections. Condemnees appealed.
The Commonwealth Court held that:
- Collateral estoppel did not bar action;
- Operator was public utility corporation empowered to exercise eminent domain;
- Operator had power to condemn property for construction of pipeline; and
- There was no basis for the Court of Common Pleas to review the Public Utility Commission’s (PUC) determination of public need.
Issue decided in previous case regarding pipeline service operator’s plans to construct interstate natural gas pipeline was not same issue raised in operator’s petition to condemn property after pipeline was repurposed to be interstate and intrastate pipeline, and therefore collateral estoppel did not bar action. Prior case addressed only whether operator was public utility corporation because it was subject to regulation as public utility by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and did not decide whether operator was public utility corporation because it was subject to regulation as public utility by Public Utility Commission (PUC).
Service to be provided by natural gas pipeline involved both interstate service, subject to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulation, and intrastate service, subject to Public Utility Commission (PUC) regulation, and therefore pipeline service operator was public utility corporation empowered to exercise eminent domain, despite contention that pipeline was solely in interstate commerce. Pipeline was to consist of physical structure with access points in Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, product was to be placed into pipeline and removed at multiple points within Pennsylvania, and pipeline operator had filed, and received PUC approval, of multiple tariffs applicable to operator’s provision of intrastate service.
Public Utility Commission (PUC) regulated intrastate shipments of natural gas liquids, including service provided by pipeline that was authorized expansion of existing service, and therefore pipeline service operator had power of eminent domain to condemn property for construction of pipeline. Operator’s certificates of public convenience applied to both existing service and to planned expansion, and operator’s approved tariffs proposed to add new origin point for west-to-east intrastate movements of propane, based on the certificates issued.
There was no basis for court of common pleas to review Public Utility Commission’s (PUC) determination that public need was demonstrated by pipeline service operator in application to condemn property to construct natural gas pipeline. PUC followed its statutory mandate and evaluated issues within its purview, and allowing such review would have permitted collateral attacks on PUC decisions and would have been contrary to statute that placed review within authority of Commonwealth Court.