HARRISBURG – Due to a question of subject matter jurisdiction, a federal judge has sent litigation pitting a natural gas company against West Rockhill Township and a group of ecologically-concerned citizens to the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board for further proceedings.
On Nov. 23, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge Christopher C. Conner ruled that the EHB did in fact have proper oversight over the case and a federal court did not.
Adelphia Gateway, LLC is a natural gas company currently constructing an interstate natural gas pipeline, in addition to related facilities in Delaware and Pennsylvania. One such facility is the Quakertown Compressor Station, located in West Rockhill Township.
In order to make the project a reality, Adelphia sought to obtain approvals from state and federal regulatory entities. Adelphia applied for these approvals in early 2018 to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, as well as the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
PADEP issued Adelphia an Air Quality Plan Approval in April 2019 under the Clean Air Act. In December 2019, FERC issued an order formally approving Adelphia’s pipeline project pursuant to its authority under the Natural Gas Act. FERC also issued a “Notice to Proceed” in October 2020, naming the Quakertown Compressor Station as one of the approved facilities for construction.
Several individual citizens and entities opposed Adelphia’s project due to environmental concerns, and appealed both the FERC and PADEP decisions to the EHB. When PADEP extended the expiration date of its Plan Approval, the collective defendants also appealed PADEP’s extension to the EHB.
EHB concurred with Adelphia, and dismissed the appeals – leading the collective defendants to then appeal EHB’s dismissal to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
In June 2021, the Commonwealth Court reversed EHB’s dismissal, ruling that the EHB did have jurisdiction over the appeals of the PADEP Plan Approval. In particular, the Commonwealth Court held that a proceeding before the EHB does not constitute a “civil action” under the Natural Gas Act’s judicial review provision, and that the law does not pre-empt EHB’s administrative review of PADEP permitting decisions.
In July 2021, Adelphia filed the instant suit against the collective defendants and added the EHB and four EHB judges as defendants to the complaint, seeking declaratory and permanent injunctive relief to prevent the EHB from maintaining any oversight of the Plan Approval decision.
In response, the collective defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint, either for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or failure to state a claim.
Citing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Conner found that Adelphia was collaterally estopped from litigating these issues once again, after doing so unsuccessfully before the Commonwealth Court.
“A federal district court has no appellate jurisdiction over the final determinations of state courts. Adelphia seeks to re-litigate in this court the issue of EHB jurisdiction over PADEP’s approval of the Quakertown Compressor Station, following the Commonwealth Court’s valid and final judgment on this very same issue. Adelphia is prohibited from doing so under Pennsylvania preclusion law,” Conner said.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 1:21-cv-01241
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com