Judge denies request for pipeline work halt
WEST CHESTER >> A Chester County Common Pleas Court judge on Thursday denied the county’s request for an injunction against Sunoco Pipeline to halt construction on the controversial Mariner East 2 project on two countyowned properties after deciding he did not have the authority to decide the case.
Judge Edward Griffith issued a terse ruling after an hour-long hearing involving attorneys from the county and the pipeline company, saying that he did not have “subject matter jurisdiction” to rule on the matter. He issued no explanation, but his decision effectively means that work on the pipeline at the Chester County Library and Chester Valley Trail can start tomorrow.
A spokeswomen for Energy Transfers, Sunoco’s parent company, company Vice President Vicki Anderson Granado, hailed the decision and indicated that work would begin soon.
“We are pleased with today’s ruling and remain focused on remobilizing our equipment and crews in this area as part of our overall plan to safely complete this important infrastructure project in line with our recent agreement with the DEP related to reviewing and approving our permit applications,” Granado said in an email.
The county commissioners, who had filed the request for an emergency injunction last week after being notified by Sunoco that work would commence at their properties on Friday, issued the following statement after Griffith’s ruling.
“The county is disappointed with the court’s ruling and is exploring all legal options that remain available to ensure that Sunoco Pipeline LP adheres to the provisions and terms of the easement that Sunoco drafted,” it read.
If Griffith had ruled in the county’s favor, finding that the dispute is a contract matter that should be settled before construction can begin, then the hearing on its request for a temporary injunction would have continued Friday to determine whether or not the county should get to halt the project while the two sides work out whether the company’s “open-trench” construction technique is justified.
But since the judge essentially accepted Sunoco’s argument that the case involves permitting questions involving the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and approvals by the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC), neither of which was included in the county’s injunction request. Thus, the county’s attempt to put a stop to the work was flawed and should be rejected.