Third Circuit Tosses Pa. Environmentalists' Challenge to Pipeline
The Third Circuit on Tuesday denied Delaware Riverkeeper Network's petition to review the Clean Water Act certification awarded to Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
September 04, 2018 at 05:12 PM
4 minute read
An environmental group dedicated to protecting the Pennsylvania waterways has lost in its challenge to the issuance of a Clean Water Act certification to the company building an extension to the Transcontinental Pipeline.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Tuesday denied Delaware Riverkeeper Network's petition to review the Clean Water Act certification awarded to Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
The court ruling clears a roadblock allowing the controversial extension of the “Transco” pipeline across Pennsylvania and other Northeastern states, an operation called “Atlantic Sunrise.”
Before any gas drilling or pipe construction can begin in Pennsylvania, the state has to address whether the activity poses an unacceptable risk of water contamination. Delaware Riverkeepers—in coordination with organizations like the Sierra Club, Lancaster Against Pipelines, and along with a Luzerne County property owner—opposed the grant of the water quality certification in this case, arguing it was handed out arbitrarily.
In addition to claiming there was not enough of an opportunity for the public to weigh in on Atlantic Sunrise, the petitioners argued the state DEP could not have satisfied its constitutional duty to safeguard Pennsylvania's ecosystem when it granted the certification before collecting the environmental impact data on which the related building permits are based. They claimed the DEP should not have issued the certification immediately based on Transco's promise that it would later obtain the permits it needs to build the pipeline expansion.
But in the court's opinion, Third Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman said that argument failed because no construction can begin without the right permits, so the activists will be given the opportunity to object during the public comment phase of the permit process.
“Petitioners attempt to distinguish this case by arguing that they have been harmed by the department's choice not to provide notice of the substantive permits upon which it conditioned the water quality certification,” Hardiman said. “Petitioners will suffer no harm from PADEP's decision to provide notice of those permits at the time it actually considers them.”
Maya van Rossum, environmentalist author head of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, had a strong reaction to the Third Circuit's ruling.
“Third Circuit judges twisted themselves into pretzels to find ways to deny the rights of the people of Pennsylvania to challenge the lawfulness of a pipeline project and instead to advance the pipeline despite the fact that neither the public nor the DEP have an understanding of the full array of harms that will be inflicted,” van Rossum said.
“With this ruling the court is taking from people their ability to challenge a pipeline project at a time that could make a meaningful difference and instead greasing the wheels for all future approvals needed from the state,” she continued. “The court is also creating the possibility that if in fact we were victorious in defeating future permitting for the project, that the people of Pennsylvania will have already lost their property rights via eminent domain to a project that might never be built.”
State DEP lawyer Alexandra C. Chiaruttini did not return a call seeking comment.
Christopher Stockton, a spokesman for Transco, praised the court's decision that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, something the environmentalists argued against.
“We are pleased with the court's decision because it recognizes the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals over agency approvals associated with interstate natural gas projects, in addition to upholding the framework used by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to ensure that appropriate environmental protections are in place for the Atlantic Sunrise project,” Stockton said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Rejects Exxon Mobil's Challenge to $725M Benzene Verdict, Adds $91M in Delay Damages
3 minute readExxon Mobil Claims Juror's Online Posts Show Bias Behind $725M Benzene Verdict
4 minute readExxonMobil Argues Co-Defendant's Settlement Barred Claims That Yielded $725M Benzene Verdict
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Distribution of Dangerous Products Via Online Marketplaces
- 2The Products Liability Case Against Tianeptine: The Deadly ‘Dietary Supplement’ Found at Your Local Store
- 3The Evolving Landscape of Joint and Several Liability in Pa.: A Post-'Spencer' Analysis
- 4A Deep Dive Into the Product-Line Exception in Pennsylvania
- 5When Personal Injury and Family Law Collide
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250