Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/barr-v-atlantic-coast-730912893
Timestamp: 2018-07-21 23:25:06
Document Index: 326707467

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 717', '§ 717', '§ 56', '§ 56', '§ 11', '§ 56', '§ 56', '§ 56', '§ 56', '§ 56']

Barr v. Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, 070518 VASC, 170620 - Virginia - Case Law - VLEX 730912893
Barr v. Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, 070518 VASC, 170620
Docket Nº: Record 170620
Opinion Judge: CLEO E. POWELL JUSTICE.
Party Name: WILLIAM BARR, ET AL. v. ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE, LLC
Judge Panel: PRESENT: Goodwyn, Mims, McClanahan, Powell, Kelsey and McCullough, JJ., and Millette, S.JJ. JUSTICE KELSEY, dissenting.
Record No. 170620
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC ("ACP") is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. It was organized for the purpose of "operating as a natural gas company as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 717a."1 As such, ACP is subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") under the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717 et seq.
The landowners demurred, asserting that (1) the allegations in ACP's petition "fail to meet the pre-entry requirements of Va. Code § 56-49.01;" (2) the activities authorized by Code § 56-49.01 are "vague and overbroad" and constitute a taking of private property that cannot be authorized by the legislature because such a taking violates the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, § 11 of the Constitution of Virginia; and (3) ACP is not a Virginia public service corporation and cannot exercise the power of eminent domain under Code § 56-49. After considering the parties' arguments, the trial court overruled the demurrers related to the landowners' constitutional arguments. In its ruling, the trial court explained that entry under Code § 56-49.01 was not an unconstitutional taking because the statute did not provide ACP with an unlimited right of entry with regard to date, scope or duration. The trial court further noted that activities ACP sought to perform were not for a private use, as the transmission of natural gas serves a public purpose. See Code § 56-605; 15 U.S.C. 717(A). However, the trial court found that ACP's notices of intent to enter were deficient under Code § 56-49.01(A) as they did not indicate the specific dates that ACP would enter the properties. Therefore, the trial court sustained the landowners' demurrer without prejudice on that limited basis.2
In their first assignment of error, the landowners take issue with the trial court's construction of Code § 56-49.01(A). Specifically, the landowners argue that the trial court erred by construing the "and" separating the provisions delineated by romanettes (i) and (ii) in the statute as disjunctive rather than conjunctive. The landowners insist that, the word "and," as used in this portion of the statute, must be read in the conjunctive. According to the landowners, the proper construction of the statute requires ACP to prove that its activities were necessary both "to satisfy any regulatory requirements" and...