Summary
In these consolidated appeals, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania considered whether an entity must possess eminent-domain authority specific to the property at issue to be liable for damages arising from an alleged de facto taking under Pennsylvania’s Eminent Domain Code. The appeals involved landowners’ claims that UGI Storage Company’s proposed buffer zone around an underground natural-gas storage facility deprived them of the use and value of their oil and gas rights. The opinion discusses UGI Storage’s federal certification, the scope of its condemnation authority, and the procedural handling of the landowners’ petitions for appointment of boards of viewers.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a public or quasi-public entity must possess eminent-domain authority specifically applicable to the affected property in order to be liable for a de facto condemnation under Pennsylvania's Eminent Domain Code.
- Whether the Commonwealth Court should address the common pleas court's alternative determination that the landowners waived, or failed to establish entitlement to, an evidentiary hearing concerning whether a de facto taking occurred.
Holdings
- A public or quasi-public entity need not possess a property-specific power of eminent domain in order to implicate inverse-condemnation principles under Pennsylvania's Eminent Domain Code.
- The Commonwealth Court's order had to be vacated and the matter remanded so that the court could address the common pleas court's alternative disposition based on the alleged off-the-record waiver of an evidentiary hearing.
Key quotations
“We hold that a public or quasi-public entity need not possess a property-specific power of eminent domain in order to implicate inverse condemnation principles.” (at 25)
“The order of the Commonwealth Court is vacated, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” (at 25)
Factual background
UGI Storage sought and received Federal Energy Regulatory Commission certification to acquire and operate the Meeker underground natural-gas storage field in Tioga County. It also sought certification of a larger protective buffer zone, but FERC denied certification for portions encompassing the appellants' properties because UGI had not demonstrated the necessary property rights or complied with landowner-notification requirements. The landowners alleged that UGI nevertheless treated the proposed buffer zone as a no-drilling or no-fracking area, substantially impairing the value and use of their oil and gas rights. They sought appointment of boards of viewers and compensation for an alleged de facto condemnation under Pennsylvania's Eminent Domain Code.
Procedural history
The Tioga County Court of Common Pleas initially appointed boards of viewers, but stayed those orders after UGI filed preliminary objections. The common pleas court later sustained the objections and dismissed the petitions, concluding that UGI lacked property-specific eminent-domain authority and alternatively that the landowners had not established a de facto taking. The Commonwealth Court initially remanded for further proceedings, but after remand the common pleas court again dismissed the petitions, and the Commonwealth Court affirmed. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania vacated the Commonwealth Court's order and remanded for consideration of the unresolved alternative issue concerning the alleged waiver of an evidentiary hearing.
Remand instructions
The matter was remanded to the Commonwealth Court to address the appellants' challenge to the common pleas court's alternative disposition based on the alleged off-the-record waiver of an entitlement to an evidentiary hearing, and for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.