Understanding Public Takings

Understanding Public Utility Takings

Underground pipelines

1. Government agencies overseeing projects

A. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

The Commission's responsibilities include:

- Regulation of pipeline, storage, and liquefied natural gas facility construction;

- Regulation of natural gas transportation in interstate commerce;

- Issuance of certificates of public convenience and necessity to prospective

companies providing energy services or constructing and operating interstate

pipelines and storage facilities;

- Regulation of facility abandonment;

- Establishment of rates for services;

- Regulation of the transportation of natural gas as authorized by the NGPA

(Natural Gas Policy Act) and the OCSLA (Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act);

and

- Oversight of the construction and operation of pipeline facilities at U.S. points of

entry for the import or export of natural gas.

B. The United States Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials

Safety Administration (PHMSA)

Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS)

OPS is the primary federal regulatory agency responsible for ensuring the safe,

reliable, and environmentally sound operation of America's energy pipelines. The

Publication provided by the Penn State Dickinson Agricultural Law Resource & Reference Center –

(2006). Prepared by Isadora Velazquez-Rivas J.D. candidate (2007) under the Direction of Phyllis J. Marquitz.

federal government establishes minimum pipeline safety standards. The Office of

Pipeline Safety (OPS), within the U. S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), has overall regulatory

responsibility for hazardous liquid and gas pipelines under its jurisdiction in the United

States.

OPS is headquartered in Washington, DC, and supported through five regional

offices located in Denver, Houston, Kansas City, Atlanta and Washington, DC. OPS

Regional Directors, Pipeline Inspectors, State Liaisons, and Community Assistance and

Technical Services (CATS) managers operate from each of the five OPS regional

offices. CATS managers are available to assist the public, the media and state or local

officials with inquiries concerning pipeline safety-related issues.

The OPS regulates and inspects the intrastate and interstate hazardous liquid

pipeline operators and the interstate gas transmission operators in Pennsylvania.

Through certification by OPS, the state of Pennsylvania regulates, and inspects the

intrastate gas pipeline operators in Pennsylvania. This work is performed by the Gas

Safety Division of the Bureau of Transportation & Safety within the Pennsylvania

Public Utilities Commission.

C. The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

The Pennsylvania legislature has empowered the Public Utility Commission to direct

and enforce safety standards for pipeline facilities and to regulate safety practices of

certificated utilities engaged in the transportation of natural gas and other gas by

pipeline.

The Commission is authorized to enforce federal safety standards as an agent for the

U.S. Department of Transportation's Office of Pipeline Safety. The safety standards

apply to the design, installation, operation, inspection, testing, construction, extension,

replacement and maintenance of pipeline facilities. The PUC may prescribe additional

pipeline safety standards over and above federal standards, provided they are not in

conflict. Whenever the Commission uncovers pipeline safety violations, it is empowered

to direct the utility to take necessary steps to correct the violation.

The PUC investigates all methods or practices of pipeline companies, including

reports, records and other information. PUC investigators inspect the property,

buildings, plants and offices of the pipeline companies and inspect books, records,

paper, email and documents relevant to the enforcement of the rules and regulations.

If an inspector finds evidence of a possible violation, a violation report is written.

The Gas Safety Division will notify the gas utility of the results of the onsite evaluation,

specifically citing the gas pipeline safety regulation the gas utility is apparently violating.

The gas utility must answer with a written response to the PUC within 30 days of

notification.

The gas utility and the Gas Safety Division will work together to reach an agreement

on how to correct the violation. If an agreement can not be reached, the Gas Safety

Division can refer the problem to the PUC for formal resolution by issuing a complaint,

setting a penalty, or seeking enforcement through the court system.

2. Opportunities for landowners to make objections

The best way for landowners to voice their concerns is through the Pennsylvania

Public Utilities Commission. The OPS Community Assistance and Technical Services

managers are available to assist the public, the media and state or local officials with

inquiries concerning pipeline safety-related issues but their offices are limited to the

OPS is headquartered in Washington, DC, and five regional offices located in Denver,

Houston, Kansas City, Atlanta and Washington, DC. OPS Regional Directors, Pipeline

Inspectors, State Liaisons, and Community Assistance and Technical Services (CATS)

managers operate from each of the five OPS regional offices. The work in

Pennsylvania is performed by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission P.O. Box 3265 Harrisburg, PA 17105-3265 Telephone: (717) 787-1740 Program Manager/ Supervisor: Paul J. Metro Direct: (717) 787-1063 E-mail: [email protected] Office of Pipeline Safety - Eastern Region Office 409-3rd Street, S.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: (202) 260-8500 Director: William H. Gute Information Contact: Alex Dankanich Direct (202) 260-8518 E-mail: [email protected] Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W Washington D.C. 20590-0001 Administrator: Vacant Acting Assistant Administrator/Chief Safety Officer: Stacey Gerard Media Contact: Patricia Klinger, Director, External Communications Direct: (202) 366-6374 or 202-366-4831 (main) Pager: (877) 990-1196 E-mail: [email protected]

Overhead Electric Transmissions


A. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

The Commission's responsibilities include:

- Approval of rates for wholesale sales of electricity and transmission in interstate

commerce for jurisdictional utilities, power marketers, power pools, power

exchanges and independent system operators;

- Oversight of the issuance of certain stock and debt securities, assumption of

obligations and liabilities, and mergers;

- Review of officer and director positions held between top officials at utility

companies and certain firms with which they do business;

- Review of rates set by the federal power marketing administrations;

- Review of exempt wholesale generator status; and C

- Certification of qualifying small power production and cogeneration facilities.

B. The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission has jurisdiction over 11 electric distribution

companies which serve the majority of the Commonwealth. However, rural electric

cooperatives and most utilities owned and operated by cities, boroughs or townships are

not regulated by the Commission.

C. The Pennsylvania Rural Electric Association

Since 1942, the Pennsylvania Rural Electric Association (PREA) has served as the

unified voice for electric cooperatives in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. These member-

owned utilities provide power and other services within their respective service territories.

These not-for-profit, consumer-owned utilities provide affordable and reliable electric

service to more than 200,000 meters representing 600,000 rural residents. PREA is a non-

profit, service organization based in Harrisburg, Pa.

Today, 14 electric distribution cooperatives in Pennsylvania and New Jersey supply

electricity to more than 200,000 rural households, businesses and industries, representing

more than 600,000 consumers. The 13 co-ops in Pennsylvania own and maintain about

12.5 percent of the electric distribution lines in the state, covering nearly one-third of the

Commonwealth's land area in 41 counties. The organization is led by a senior management

team.

www.prea.com


1) Pennsylvania Rural Electric Association, P.O. Box 1266 Harrisburg, PA 17108 717/233-5704 2) Anna Cochrane Telephone: 202-502-6357 Email: [email protected] 3) Can also find out the company who is trying to put up the electrical transmission

lines and contact them directly.

Water Mains & Sewer Lines Across Landowner�’s Property


A. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

The PUC has jurisdiction over more than 200 water and wastewater utilities,

including a number of municipal water and wastewater companies. In the case of utilities

owned and operated by municipalities (city, borough or township), the Commission does not

have jurisdiction unless a municipality is serving customers who reside outside of its

corporate boundaries. The Commission maintains jurisdiction over the rates and service to

these outside customers.

If a municipality was charging a bulk rate to another municipality outside its

corporate boundaries, and the other municipality in turn was reselling the water to its

customers, the Commission would not regulate either municipality.

The Commission, generally, does not regulate municipal authorities. However,

should an authority lease the operating system back to the municipality and municipal

officials control the development of rates and operation, the Commission has jurisdiction

over the rates and service for customers located outside of the municipality�’s corporate

boundaries.

For the most part, the Commission does not regulate mobile home park systems

unless they also serve outside the mobile park. Fees for service(s) are usually collected within

lot rentals. However, there are a few systems that fall under PUC jurisdiction.

The Commission does not regulate any bona fide cooperative association that

furnishes service(s), exclusively, to only its stockholders or members on a not-for-profit

basis.


This depends on who is in charge of the project (the area, the company, etc.) Best

choice is to contact the Public Utility Commission directly.

The following applies for GAS, ELECTRIC, AND WATER

3. Agricultural Land Condemnation Approval Board (ALCAB) process or other

protections under state law

Act 43 of 1981 expanded the Agricultural Land Condemnation Approval Board�‘s

authority by requiring that all entities with the power of eminent domain seek prior approval

for condemnation for ANY type of project if the land is within an agricultural security area.

The landowner needs to first determine whether the land is located in an agricultural security

area (same thing as an agricultural district). Approval can be granted if the board determines

that the condemnation would not have an adverse affect on the preservation and

enhancement of agriculture or upon the environmental or comprehensive plans of the

county OR there is no reasonable alternative.

4. Laws that a rural landowner can rely upon to challenge the taking of his land

Pennsylvania requires review by the ALCAB under Act 43 of 1981 and Executive

Order 2003-2 reaffirms the Board�’s role by establishing priorities for protecting and directing

the Board to consider these priorities when making determinations.

5. Fair and just compensation for the taking

In Laureldale Cemetery Co. v. Reading Co. (1931) 303 Pa 315 which involved the taking

of a portion of a cemetery plot under eminent domain proceedings, it was held that the

proper measure of damages for the appropriated land was the difference in the

market value of the land before and after the appropriation, and that such appropriated

land must be valued like any other land in its vicinity and not as sepulture lots to be turned

into cash in the future. In the instant case, the condemned parcel contained 8 1/4 unused

and undeveloped acres in the northern half of a cemetery which consisted of three tracts of

land separated by highways and a railroad and totaling about 117 acres. The development,

sale of burial lots, and interment were all confined to the small southern part of the

cemetery land and no interments had been made nearer than 600 feet to the land

appropriated. The trial court refused to permit, as conjectural, testimony by the cemetery

president as to the value of the property on a burial site basis to be sold over 30 years, or as

to the present value of each year's sales over the cemetery's life, after deducting the cost of

development of the entire cemetery according to the universal experience of cemeteries and

the experience of the Laureldale Cemetery. Affirming judgment against the claimant

cemetery and rejecting the claimant cemetery's contention that the proper measure was the

value of the appropriated land for sepulture purposes, the court remarked that if the

claimant's measure had been adopted, the resulting figure would be $26,000 an acre for land

which cost about $500 an acre 3 or 4 years previously, so that this, prima facie, looked like

real-estate alchemy. The court then stated that if, in determining the value of the part of the

cemetery plot condemned under eminent domain, a choice must be made between the

market value of the land in that vicinity and a conjectural value based on discounted future

profits, there could be no doubt which choice justice dictates, adding that the size of the

verdict appealed from ($39,906.16 for 8 1/4 acres), compared with the size of the claimant's

demand for compensation ($214,500), for land which cost only $500 an acre (total cost

$4,125) 3 years previously, clearly indicated which rule more nearly guaranteed "just

compensation.�” In this connection, the court also pointed out that the parcel actually taken

had no present "productiveness" and was a current liability rather than an asset, because

money had to be invested upon it before it could be sold for sepulture. The court finally

stated that the market value rule of measure of damages satisfied all the requirements of just

compensation in the instant case, for, if any piece of land possesses attributes that stimulate

competition for its ownership, this affects its market value favorably, but if there is no

competition for its ownership, the courts should not permit values to be increased by a

calculation based on anticipated profits which have little pecuniary value.

42 A.L.R.3d 1314 (used case as an example of how just compensation is determined by the actual value of

the land at the time it is taken and after)

* Court Procedure (jury in determining just compensation)

In United States v. 186.82 Acres of Land (1962, DC Pa) 207 F. Supp. 395, the court,

in ruling that the interest of justice required the appointment of commissioners to determine

the issue of compensation in a federal eminent domain suit involving 24 small tracts of land,

pointed out that the land was located 80 miles from the nearest federal courthouse. The

court said that the constitutional guaranty of just compensation to a landowner in a

condemnation case is simply an empty phrase where a landowner is required to travel 80

miles to the courthouse with his expert witness and counsel to try a case involving a parcel

of land valued at $4,000, let alone one of $150. The court said it is impractical to take a jury

from the city where the case is tried to the location of the property in each trial involving a

separate owner and a separate parcel of land. A practical solution of the problem of fairness

and uniformity, said the court, would be for the commissioners to meet in the village where

the property is located to take testimony and to examine and view the land with the

buildings and other appurtenances. By that method, said the court, a property owner could

no doubt secure a satisfactory settlement of his just compensation with a minimum expense

to himself and to the government. 8 A.L.R. Fed. 180

Rule 71(a) (h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs trials of federal eminent

domain cases, including trial by jury. It expressly limits the jury's authority to the

determination of the issue of just compensation and provides that all other issues are to be

determined by the court. In US v. Keller 142 F.3d 718, the court held that because Rule 71A

conditions access to a jury on the making of a timely demand, the district court did not

abuse its discretion in denying the landowners' untimely demand, even though the

government's notice of condemnation did not inform the landowners, unrepresented by

counsel, of the need to demand a jury trial, and even though the notice had included the

government's own demand for a jury trial, which the government did not formally withdraw

until after the landowners' demand had been filed. 164 A.L.R. Fed. 341

Authorities:

www.ferc.gov

www.puc.state.pa.us

http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/

Who decides the exact location of the pipeline or the transmission line is up to the company that has the contract (and the interest) to put the pipeline or the transmission line in the landowner's property?

This is typically decided after a survey of the land and such surveys are typically conducted with the landowner's authorization to enter the property. The company does not have to announce to the landowner who will be deciding the location of the pipeline or the transmission line but they have to explain the landowner why they need to enter his property and survey it. The best choice would be for the landowner to voice his complaints/preferences directly to the company when they ask permission to survey the land. The landowner can also reasonably delay such service by asking the company's surveyors to come by later when he can have access to legal counsel. The problem is that most of the time landowners are unaware that they can do this and therefore allow people into their land without knowing the correct course of action to follow. If a landowner has no choice but to let the surveyors into the land without access to legal counsel then the landowner must at the very least try to voice his complaints and desires regarding the pipeline or transmission line location hoping that they will be considered once the company makes the decision.

The earliest required point to notify a landowner of where the pipeline or transmission line will be located is when the company is already asking for the easement. At this point, it

might be too late for the landowner to voice his complaints to the company because the government will most likely already have approved the plans. The company will not approach the landowner until it has authorization from the government and a clear plan to ask for the easement.

How early can a landowner become involved in the process? The landowner can become involved in the process when the utility requests a certificate of public convenience for the pipeline process but neither the government agency nor the company involved in the pipeline development have the actual duty of getting the landowner involved other than mandatory notification after decisions have been made. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission website provides a list of the relevant projects proposed depending on the area and state. Landowners can determine the projects that affect them by looking at this website and therefore take action against such projects if such action is desired.

Jurisdiction: If an action is authorized by the Federal Power Commission or any other federal agency then federal courts have jurisdiction when the court goes on appeal. Originally, the parties discuss the case at the trial level in one of the courts designed by the Commission. If any of the parties wish to appeal the trial level decision then the federal court gets jurisdiction of the case on appeal.

Jurisdiction of state or local courts:

Jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission: Sunray Mid-Continent Oil Co. v. Federal Power Com., 364 U.S. 137

o Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717f(c) , provides that no gas company shall engage in the transportation of natural gas, subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission unless there is in force with respect to such natural-gas company a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Commission authorizing such acts. By virtue of § 1(b) of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717 (b), sales of gas by an independent producer to a pipeline in interstate commerce for resale for ultimate public consumption came within the scope of the Natural Gas Act.

o Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717f (b), regulates the abandonment by natural-gas companies of their facilities and services subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission. The section follows a common pattern in federal utility regulation in forbidding such abandonment without the permission and approval of the Commission first had and obtained. The Commission is to extend permission for an abandonment of service only on a finding that the available supply of natural gas is depleted to the extent that the continuance of service is unwarranted, or that the present or future public convenience or necessity permit such abandonment.

o Section 4(c) of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717c (c), provides: Under such rules and regulations as the Federal Power Commission may prescribe, every gas company shall file with the Commission schedules showing rates and charges for transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, and classifications, practices, and regulations affecting such rates.

o CASES FROM THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION AREA APPEALED TO FEDERAL COURT

Jurisdiction of federal courts: Griffin v. United States, 537 F.2d 1130

The district court held that it had jurisdiction by virtue of the Tucker Act and Section 210(a) of the Economic Stabilization Act.

Jurisdiction of state courts: Williams Pipeline Co. v. Soo Line R.R. Co, 597 N.W.2d 340 (No Pennsylvania case found)

The court held trial court had jurisdiction to hear appellants' objections to condemnation because the condemnation petition and appellants' objections arose under state law.

On its face, 42 U.S.C. § 9613 (h) limits the power of the federal courts to entertain certain challenges and to review certain orders. The statute does not affect state court jurisdiction over state law claims. A condemnation petition and objections to that petition can arise under state law.

Practical rule of thumb for determining damages based on the fair marker value of the land:

1. Compensation for the diminution in value of property requires proof on the part of the landowner that the fair market value of the property diminished because of the utility easement.

a. Defects of a foundational nature and expert testimony concerning the effect of a utility easement on property values can support the landowner's contention that the utility easement has the effect of producing substantial sales resistance among potential purchasers.

2. In some jurisdictions, the allowance of the depreciation in the market value of the premises as a whole is not made by rule in terms laying down that depreciation as the measure of damages. Nevertheless such measure is usually in substance adhered to by indicating in effect that the allowance shall consist of compensation for the interest or estate taken in the easement strip, plus the amount of damages sustained to the remainder of the premises, each of which matters is commonly regarded as involving simply compensation for a depreciation in market value.

3. In a few jurisdictions, possibly at times through inadvertence, the rule of compensation laid down as to the easement strip itself has been one that allows compensation for value of the strip in fee. Where that allowance is made, the total compensation awarded as permanent damages does not amount to the depreciation in the market value of the premises as a whole.

4. In a few instances the doctrine apparently laid down or applied was that, in respect of the particular area subjected to the pipeline easement, the owner was entitled to the full fee simple value of that area.

Elements of compensation:

38 A.L.R.2d 788 The ultimate measure of the permanent damages sustained by an owner from the establishment of an oil or gas pipeline easement across his premises is the difference between the fair market value of the whole premises immediately before the taking and the

fair market value thereof immediately afterward. Certain items of damage, such as those sustained to crops or fences, may be, and when the given items are to be excluded from consideration in arriving at the further allowance to be made for depreciation in land value. Many of the opinions are not entirely clear in their statements regarding such matters, and certain doubts and ambiguities have consequently resulted as to the approved mode of determining the total award.

Cases applicable:

Seem v. Susquehanna Pipe Line Co. 314 Pa. 417, 171 A. 893

Damages for taking the right of way are acceptable.

Hankey v. Philadelphia County 41 W.N.C. 27, 1897 WL 4156, Pa.Super.

In an action for condemnation proceedings, the measure of damages is the difference between the market value of the land immediately before the occupation of the land by the company and immediately after, as affected thereby. The measure of damages for occupancy of land and diversion of water, by the laying of a pipeline, is the difference between the market value of the land immediately before and immediately after the occupation and taking.

Limit on Damages:

Denniston v. Philadelphia Co. 161 Pa. 41

In a proceeding for the assessment of damages to land through which a pipeline passes, the inconvenience and injury caused by the location may be considered, but damages produced by the negligent construction and operation of the pipe line cannot be considered in such a proceeding under the Act of May 29, 1885, P.L. 29, 15 P.S. § 1981 et seq. Under the Act of May 29, 1885, P.L. 29, 15 P.S. § 1981 et seq., a pipe line company laying pipes for natural gas is made liable for negligent operation of the line, but a recovery of damages for such will not be allowed in a suit for damages for taking the land. The absolute liability imposed by the constitution for injury to property, and put by it upon the same footing than a taking for public use, is such injury only as is the direct, immediate, necessary and unavoidable consequence of the act of eminent domain itself, irrespective of care or negligence in doing it. For such injury a proceeding before viewers is the appropriate remedy; while for injury by negligent performance of the work, the remedy must be by action of trespass. In an action by a landowner for damages caused by the construction of a pipeline for conveying gas across his land, injuries resulting from leakage are not proper elements of damage, in the absence of evidence that such leakage was consistent with a proper construction of the line, and not the result of negligence in the operation thereof.

Additional Relevant Information:

A.L.R.4th is the latest on this subject: 23 A.L.R.4th 631 The annotation collects and analyzes the state and federal eminent domain cases,

which have determined whether, and under some circumstances, the elements and measure of compensation include the fear or apprehension of danger due to the

establishment or maintenance of an electric transmission line or a natural gas, oil, or other chemical pipeline.

Courts may award compensation for damages attributable to fears of the presence of an electric transmission line or a gas or oil pipeline where the evidence supports the conclusion that the property sustained a diminution in value.

o However, where there was insufficient evidence that prospective purchasers generally entertained fears of an electric transmission line or a gas pipeline, or it such fears fail to have an adverse effect upon property values, the courts adopting can deny compensation.

Authorities, generally recognizing that a diminution in value due to the fears of prospective buyers is compensable in eminent domain, have adopted the view that fears, in order to be compensable, must be shown to be reasonable

o Other authorities have stated that compensation requires proof of a basis in reason or experience for the fear of danger

Where the fears were not shown to be reasonable, or where there was insufficient evidence that the fears entertained by prospective buyers adversely affected market value, compensation has been denied

Some authorities, apparently concluding that the fears concerning electric transmission lines are generally unjustified and founded upon ignorance and superstition, have adopted the view that there may be no compensation for alleged diminution in the value of a property due to the fears of prospective purchasers

Courts have differed as to the admissibility of testimony relating to prior accidents as proof that a utility easement presents a danger of personal injury or property damages and therefore contributes to the diminished value of the remainder following the condemnation of a utility easement.

Projects in Pennsylvania (and Companies involved in each project �– the landowner

can contact each company directly for any complaints)

Project Name Description Company Name Mid-Atlantic/Dominion Expansion Dominion Transmission requests

authorization to upgrade two compressor stations in Green and Franklin Counties, Pennsylvania, install additional turbines at a compressor station in Loudoun County, Virginia, and install a new turbine at a new compressor station located in Fauquier County, Virginia. Texas Eastern requests authorization to provide lease capacity to Dominion by constructing four new pipeline loops totaling about 35 miles and upgrade a compressor station located in Uniontown, Pennsylvania.

Dominion Transmission, Inc. and Texas Eastern

Oxford HP Application to update the horsepower on three electric engines at the Oakford Compressor Station and two electric engines at the South Oakford Compressor Station, all located within Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania.

Texas Eastern

National Fuel Line C Application to abandon by sale, a 17.4-mile-ling pipeline located in Elk and McKean Counties, Pennsylvania.

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation

2003-2005 System Expansion Application to construct and operate 5.7 miles of loop pipeline, modify an existing meter station, and construct a new pressure regulator. The proposed facilities are located in Chester County, Pennsylvania and New Castle County, Delaware.

Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company

Piney Hydroelectric Project Application for a major new hydropower license (re-license). The project is located on the Clarion River in Clarion County, Pennsylvania.

Reliant Energy Mid-Atlantic Power Holding Company

Lake Wallenpaupack Hydroelectric Project

Application for a major new hydropower license (re-license). The project is located on Wallenpaupack Creek, in Wayne and Pike Counties, Pennsylvania.

PPL Holtwood, LLC.

Allegheny Lock and Dam #3 Hydroelectric Project

Application for a preliminary permit to study a proposed hydropower project

Universal Electric Power Corporation

to be located on the U.S. Corps of Engineers' Allegheny Lock and Dam 3, on the Allegheny River, in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

Columbia Line 1655 and Line 136 Application for authorization to increase the maximum allowable operating pressure of portions of an existing pipeline (Line 1655 and Line 136) located in Adams and York Counties, Pennsylvania.

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation

Beltzville Lake Dam Hydroelectric Project

Application for preliminary permit to study a proposed hydropower project to be located at the U.S. Corps of Engineers Beltzville Lake Dam and Reservoir, on the Pohopoco Creek in Carbon County, Pennsylvania.

The Borough of Lehighton, PA

Columbia Line 1278 Proposal to replace about 43 miles of pipeline located in Northampton, Monroe, and Pike Counties, Pennsylvania.

Columbia Gas Transmission

Crown Landing LNG Terminal Application to construct a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal in Logan Township, Glouster County, New Jersey.

BP/Crown Landing LLC

Monongahela Lock and Dam #3 Hydroelectric Project

Application for preliminary permit to study a proposed hydropower project to be located at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Monongahela Lock and Dam #3 on the Monongahela River, in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

MR L&D 3 Hydro, LLC

Point Marion Lock Dam Hydroelectric Project

Application for preliminary permit to study a proposed hydropower project to be located at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Point Marion Lock Dam on the Monongahela River, in Fayette County, Pennsylvania.

Point Marion Hydro, LLC

Logan Lateral Pipeline Application to construct about 12 miles of pipeline that would extend from Chester Junction, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, to the site of the planned Crown Landing LNG Terminal Project (CP04-411-000) in Gloucester County, New Jersey.

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP

Owls Nest Storage Field Application for approval to plug and abandon two storage wells and abandon one well line at the Owls Nest Storage Field in Elk County,

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation

Pennsylvania. Leidy to Long Island Expansion Project

Proposal to construct 4.2 miles of pipeline loop in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania (Hughesville Loop) 5.7 miles of pipeline loop in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania (Berwick Loop), 3.5 miles of pipeline loop in Somerset County, New Jersey (Neshanic Loop), uprate and replace 1.7 miles of pipeline and construct a new compressor station in Middlesex County, New Jersey, uprate about 35 miles of pipeline (onshore and offshore) of Monmouth County, New Jersey, and Queens and Nassau Counties, New York (Lower Bay Uprate).

Transco

Mahoning Creek Project Application for preliminary permit to study a proposed hydropower project to be located at an existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' dam on Mahoning Creek, in Armstrong County, Pennsylvania.

Mahoning Creek Hydroelectric Co. LLC

Texas Eastern Pipeline Relocation Request for authorization to replace and relocate pipeline and related facilities at five locations in Fayette County, Pennsylvania, in order to accommodate construction of the Mon-Fayette Expressway Project.

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP

Hebron Storage Field Application for authorization to increase storage deliverability from the Hebron Storage Field by making modifications to Compressor Station 313 located in Potter County, Pennsylvania.

Tennessee Gas Pipeline/National Fuel Gas Supply

Northeast ConnecXion - NY/NJ Project

Application to construct about six miles of looping on the existing Line 300 in western Pennsylvania, additional horsepower at Stations 313 and 317 in Potter and Bradford Counties, Pennsylvania, and upgrades to the Ramsey Meter Station in Bergen County, New Jersey.

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company

Shenango Dam Project Application for preliminary permit to study a proposed hydropower project to be located at an Army Corps of Engineers dam located on the

Shenango Dam Hydroelectric Company., LLC

Shenango River, in Mercer County, Pennsylvania.

N/A Authorization to increase the MAOP on Lines 1907 and 10016 located in Adams and York Counties, Pennsylvania

Columbia Gas Transmission

Northeast ConneXion Project The Project involves expanding capacity on Tennessee's pipeline system with the addition of six new compressor stations in MA, PA, and NY

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company

Que Pumped Storage Project The proposed project would be located on Quemahoning Creek, in Quemahoning Township, Somerset County, PA

Cambria Somerset Authority

Loyalhanna Hydroelectric Project The proposed project would be located at the existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Loyalhanna Dam located on Loyalhanna Creek, near the Town of Saltsburg, Westmoreland County, PA

Loyalhanna Hydroelectric Company LLC

Eastern Shore Project To construct and operate certain pipeline and measuring station facilities located in Pennsylvania and Delaware in order to expand the capacity of Eastern Shore�’s system.

Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company (Eastern Shore)

Stagecoach Phase II Expansion Project

Abbreviated application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity seeking authority to expand the existing Stagecoach Storage Facility, located in Tioga County, New York and Bradford County, Pennsylvania, and to provide expanded high deliverability natural gas storage service and interruptible wheeling service in interstate commerce at market-based rates.

Central New York Oil and Gas Company, LLC

Understanding Public Takings

Documents

Transcript of Understanding Public Takings