Court Opinion

ID: 9444261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 20:07:28.315858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:45.962111
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                              MIDDLE DISTRICT

CLIFFORD COLE, PAMELA WEST, BRIAN              :   No. 415 MAL 2021
WEIRBACK, KATHY WEIRBACK, TODD                 :
SHELLY AND CHRISTINE SHELLY                    :
                                               :   Petition for Allowance of Appeal
                                               :   from the Order of the
             v.                                :   Commonwealth Court
                                               :
                                               :
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF                     :
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION                       :
                                               :
                                               :
PETITION OF: ADELPHIA GATEWAY, LLC             :

WEST ROCKHILL TOWNSHIP                         :   No. 416 MAL 2021
                                               :
                                               :
             v.                                :   Petition for Allowance of Appeal
                                               :   from the Order of the
                                               :   Commonwealth Court
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL                    :
PROTECTION                                     :
                                               :
                                               :
PETITION OF: ADELPHIA GATEWAY,                 :
LLC                                            :

                                       ORDER

PER CURIAM

      AND NOW, this 3rd day of August, 2023, the Petitions for Allowance of Appeal are

GRANTED. The issues as stated by Petitioner are:

      (1)   The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled five times that it
            has “original and exclusive” jurisdiction over the review of the Department’s
            issuance of permits in connection with interstate natural gas pipeline
             projects regulated under the federal Natural Gas Act.               Did the
             Commonwealth Court err on an important question of first impression in
             holding that the EHB has dual jurisdiction over such appeals, contrary to the
             plain language of the Natural Gas Act?

      (2)    Did the Commonwealth Court depart from accepted judicial practices and
             abuse its discretion in determining that the federal Natural Gas Act does not
             preempt the EHB from reviewing the Department’s permits, given the
             contrary holdings of other courts, and given that those permits are issued
             pursuant to, and required by, federal law governing interstate natural gas
             pipeline projects?

      (3)    Did the Commonwealth Court depart from accepted judicial practices and
             abuse its discretion in adopting a dual-jurisdiction approach that is contrary
             to the plain language of the federal Natural Gas Act’s judicial review
             provision, undermines Congress’s clear legislative purpose, is without
             precedent in this or any other jurisdiction, and creates an unworkable
             framework that will produce uncertainty, inconsistency, and conflict among
             state and federal courts?

      The Prothonotary is directed to list these cases for argument together with the

appeals granted at 312-313 EAL 2021.

      Justice Brobson did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

                                  [416 MAL 2021] - 2