Questions arise over PUC talks

Chester County appears to be among those parties that will be discussing a possible settlement this week of efforts before the state Public Utilities Commission to ensure safety measures and proper communications regarding the Mariner East 2 Pipeline project, according to those familiar with the case.

The county is apparently joining with East Goshen, the Downingtown Area School District, and the Rose Tree-Media School District in meeting with representatives of Sunoco Pipelines on Thursday.

News of the settlement in discussions caused concern among local pipeline safety activists, particularly because the original plaintiffs of the suit before the PUC — three Chester County residents and four Delaware County

residents, nicknamed the “Safety 7” — had not been invited to join the settlement conference, a prospect they deemed unfair.

Laura Obenski, an intervenor in the PUC action from Uwchlan, said that she had learned of the meeting in an email from commissioners’ Chairwoman Marian Moskowitz last week. But when contacted Monday about the conference, Moskowitz demurred by saying first that she could not comment on legal matters, and later that she was not completely certain that the county would be included in the conference because of questions about its legal representation.

“That is what I understand but I am not sure,” Moskowitz said of the settlement conference in an interview. “I have to hear it from the lawyers.”

Attorney Michael Bomstein with the Clear Air Council of Philadelphia, who represents the original plaintiffs in the case said in a telephone interview Monday that he understood that the conference would include only certain parties who were invited and would be held this week.

“I have been told that

Sunoco, through its counsel, has reached out to certain lawyers to discuss the possibility of a settlement, and that a settlement conference had been set,” in the PUC case, Bomstein said. “It is a divide and conquer strategy. It is another case of whatever Sunoco wants, Sunoco gets.”

He noted that the PUC judge overseeing the case had already set a timetable for settlements for all concerned, but that was not part of what the parties and Sunoco plan for this week. Bomstein also noted wryly that in other pipeline proceedings, Sunoco had complained of being “locked out” of settlement proceedings between Clean Air Council and other parties.

Sunoco spokeswoman Lisa Coleman declined comment, citing the ongoing litigation.

In her email dated July 17, Moskowitz lauded Obenski’s efforts, along with other concerned citizens, to “seek to ensure safety protocols, cooperation and transparency from Sunoco regarding the Mariner Pipeline.

“These are reasonable requests that you are all entitled to, and they are the same requests that Chester County Government, particularly through our Department of Emergency Services, have asked of Sunoco ever since the Mariner 2 pipeline activity

began,” Moskowitz wrote. “The legal actions that the county has taken, and will continue to take, against Sunoco are done so to ensure the health and safety of every one of our residents.”

Moskowitz then let Obenski know that the county would for the time being continue to be represented by a Philadelphia law firm, Reger Rizzo & Darnall, in upcoming negotiations with Sunoco, even though it had previously signaled that it was terminating its contract with the firm over issues regarding over-billing in the PUC matter.

“Although we have ended our relationship with Reger Rizzo & Darnall for future representation in the (PUC) matter, we have asked the firm to represent Chester County as they are for East Goshen Township at next week’s settlement conference for which we have a set fee arrangement,” he said. “We are in the process of setting up interviews for representation in this matter going forward.”

Obenski said she had objections to the announcement on two fronts: first, that the settlement conference excluded the original plaintiffs, other residents such as herself, and other governmental entities, such as the West Chester Area School District; and second, that Reger Rizzo would continue to represent the county.

“It just seems so disingenuous,” she said.

“Short of ceasing operations (along the pipeline)” and developing a public safety and communications plan by Sunoco, “I am not sure there is any settlement worth addressing. To my mind, there is no negotiations to be made about it.

“But I’m not as upset that there is some negotiations going on as I am that not everyone is at the table,” she added. “Otherwise, it’s not done in good faith.”

She also cast doubt on the Reger Rizzo firm being able to properly represent the county after it had essentially been fired for the over-billing concerns that were publicly revealed after Obenski released results of her efforts to find out how much the county was paying the firm for its representation before the PUC.

Moskowitz, on Monday, suggested that it made sense for the Reger firm to represent the county at the meeting this week because it was aware of the county’s interests, and that it would do so while the county continued to look for a new firm to handle the case should it proceed.

But no settlement of the suit would be final unless all the parties — including the residents — agree to its conditions.

In an online petition drive Obenski began over the weekend, she asked supporters to demand that the county and the other settlement participants give way unless the parties were “all in.”

“Our community has worked hard to collectively oppose the dangerous Mariner East project in this legal proceeding before the PUC,” she wrote. “Don’t let Sunoco’s tactics tear that apart — tell your township, school, and county officials to say ‘no’ to participation in settlement discussions that are exclusionary. Instead, say ‘yes’ to the collective power and unity of our communities working together to stand up and stand together.

“We will not settle for anything less than all in — and neither should our elected officials who are responsible for our collective safety,” Obenski wrote. As of Monday afternoon 198 people had signed the petition.

In 2019, the county commissioners decided to intervene in the legal challenge by residents and others to Sunoco’s pipeline plans before the state PUC. The county agreed that Sunoco does not have a proper emergency plan in place in the event of a pipeline catastrophe, which could lead to property damage, personal injury, or death.

The lawsuit before PUC asked it to grant residents emergency relief and shut down the existing Mariner One pipeline that transverses the county, and to halt work on the Mariner Two pipeline that has drawn howls of protest across the region.

A hearing on the request was held by the PUC in October, and another session is scheduled for September.

The commissioners, by joining with the residents involved in the challenge, essentially contend that Sunoco has failed in communicating with its emergency services officials, and lacks coherent plans for an emergency.

“They have shown a complete disregard for the safety of our residents, for our emergency responders, and for the community,” said thenVice Chairwoman Kathi Cozzone. “It’s been very frustrating.”

For more than two years, the commissioners and leadership from the county’s Department of Emergency Services have been formally requesting crucial pipeline emergency safety information and procedures from Sunoco, either directly or through the PUC and Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency, in order to prepare mass notification plans and neighborhood emergency practices in the event of a Mariner East pipeline disaster.