DECISION AND ORDER I. Introduction Before this Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 10) arguing that the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. §§717, et seq., and FERC regulations preempt Defendant Town of Pendleton’s (“Town”) ordinance restricting Plaintiffs’ proposed gas pipeline project, construction and operation of a compression station in Pendleton. They seek declaratory judgment or an injunction against enforcement of the Town’s zoning ordinance against their gas pipeline project. Plaintiffs also moved for expedited hearing of this motion (Docket No. 11), which was granted (Docket No. 13). Responses to the summary judgment motion initially were due on April 3, 2017, with replies due April 7, 2017 (id.). Defendant responded (Docket No. 14), Plaintiffs replied (Docket No. 15). Defendant then submitted a sur-reply (Docket No. 16) but Plaintiffs moved to strike the sur-reply (Docket No. 18). After briefing on the motion to strike (Docket Nos. 19, 20), this Court denied the motion to strike (Docket No. 39). The parties meanwhile supplemented the motion for summary judgment and defense opposition (Docket Nos. 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 35, 36, 44; see Docket Nos. 23, 27, 34 (Orders granting leave to supplement); cf. Docket No. 30 (Order denying supplemental motion, Docket No. 28)) supplying and updating authorities. On October 10, 2018, this Court granted leave Plaintiffs’ motion to supplement and deemed briefing completed (Docket No. 38; see also Docket No. 39, deeming briefing completed). On May 8, 2020, Plaintiffs moved to further supplement authorities (Docket No. 40), which this Court granted (Docket No. 41). Final responses to the supplemental authorities were due by May 26, 2020, and Plaintiffs’ reply were due June 3, 2020 (id.). Defendant filed its supplemental submission (Docket No. 42) and Plaintiffs replied (Docket No. 43). Plaintiffs on July 10, 2020, moved to further supplement authorities to update a previously cited case (Docket No. 44). With the motion thus fully briefed, it was submitted without oral argument. Upon consideration of the above-cited briefing and the arguments made therein and for the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 10) is granted in part, granting declaratory judgment to them. II. BACKGROUND A. Complaint This is an action commenced by a natural gas transmission company and a natural gas supplier (Docket No. 1, Compl.). This is an action for declaratory judgment and permanent injunction under the Natural Gas Act (id. 4). In March 17, 2015, National Fuel Gas Supply (“National Fuel”) filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) seeking an Order and Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (“Certificate”) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new pipeline and compression facilities from McKean County, Pennsylvania, to Niagara County, New York (id. 7). Included with this pipeline project is construction of a compressor station in the Town of Pendleton, New York (“Town”) (id. 9). The FERC granted the Certificate on February 3, 2017, National Fuel Gas Supply Corp., 158 FERC 61,145, 2017 WL 496277 (2017) (id.
8, 99, Ex. A; see also Docket No. 10, Pls. Atty. Aff. 3, Ex. A; id., Pls. Statement 3). Near the end of the Certificate, FERC declared “Commenters, including the Town of Pendleton, state that local land use laws do not allow for development of the Pendleton Compressor Station at the proposed location. We note that any state or local permits issued with respect to the jurisdictional facilities authorized herein must be consistent with the conditions of this certificate. We encourage cooperation between interstate pipelines and local authorities. However, this does not mean that state and local agencies, through application of state or local laws, may prohibit or unreasonably delay the construction or operation of facilities approved by this Commission.” (Docket No. 1, 10, Ex. A, 158 FERC 61,145, Certificate 194, 2017 WL 496277, at *47 (emphasis added)). After concluding that the project (if consistent with Plaintiffs’ application) would not affect the quality of the environment (id., Ex. A, 158 FERC 61,145, Certificate 197, 2017 WL 496277, at *47), FERC issued the Certificate conditioned upon Plaintiffs completing authorized construction within two years of date of the Certificate; compliance with applicable FERC regulations; compliance with environmental conditions; and executing contracts (id., Ex. A, 158 FERC 61,145, Certificate, Commission Ordering Paragraph (C), 2017 WL 496277, at *48). Plaintiffs allege that this Certificate, among other things, bars defendant Town from prohibiting, interfering with, or unreasonably delaying the construction or operation of the pipeline project (id. 11). Plaintiffs assert that the Town opposed construction (id.
