ShareThis Page
Business Headlines

Judge backs Sunoco in dispute over its use of eminent domain

| Saturday, Oct. 3, 2015, 12:01 a.m.

Sunoco Logistics scored a victory in one of its court battles over land it needs to build a cross-state pipeline for natural gas liquids.

A Cumberland County judge last week dismissed the challenges that three sets of landowners filed to eminent domain proceedings, ruling that the Philadelphia-based company has the authority to seize land as a public utility.

Hershey attorney Michael Faherty, who represents the landowners and others who filed similar challenges elsewhere, could not be reached Friday.

Sunoco Logistics is seeking to use eminent domain in several counties where it could not reach agreements with landowners as it builds Mariner East 2. That pipeline will mostly parallel an existing system used to deliver propane, butane and ethane from Marcellus and Utica shale wells to the Marcus Hook terminal south of Philadelphia.

“While the court's decision is consistent with other courts who have looked at the issue for this project, and consistent with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission's determination that this service is a public utility service, we do not view the need to resort to eminent domain as a positive outcome,” the company said in a statement.

Judge Edward Guido ruled that the PUC's designation satisfies the public utility requirement because the pipeline will accept and deliver liquids within the state. He said a decision last year by a York County judge that questioned Sunoco's status was no longer applicable.

David Conti is a Trib Total Media staff writer. Reach him at 412- 388-5802 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me