(3) Range Range, as noted, in its Amicus Brief, fully supports the position of Sunoco in arguing that the public interest is injured by the shutdown of ME1. c. Disposition We wholeheartedly agree with the ALJ, that the risk of physical injury or death because of unsafe construction would be catastrophic. Unsafe construction could also be catastrophic by harming the water sources of the Township. However, there is also economic harm to the public in the continued shutdown of ME1, which plays an important role in local, state and the national economy. See Sunoco I; also, In re Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline L.P., 167 A.3d 307 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017); appeal denied 179 A.3d 456 (Pa. 2018). The primary concern of this Commission is the safety of the public as well as the safety of the utility workers. See Pa. PUC v. York Co., Docket No. R00049165 (Order entered October 4, 2004). Regardless of the monetary costs involved in shutting down ME1, this Commission will not hesitate to direct a shut down when and if the conditions indicate that there is an imminent threat to public safety. See, e.g., May 3 Order when, in fact, the Commission authorized resumption of the operations of ME1 when the Ex Parte Emergency Order halted. operations in March 2018. the foregoing, where there is no sign of imminent danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the public, evidence presented by Sunoco regarding the economic harm that is caused by the shutdown of ME1 is difficult to ignore. Sunoco has placed in the record testimony of various segments of the public concerning the wide-ranging economic impact on the local, and regional economy, associated with the shutdown of ME1. See Amicus Curiae Brief of Range
Sunoco takes the position that a bond is not awarding “damages,” which the Commission is statutorily prohibited from doing. Id., citing Elkin v. Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, 420 A.2d 371 (Pa. 1980). 1. Disposition On consideration of the Sunoco request for a bond requirement, we shall decline to impose such an obligation. As a result of our reversal in part, and affirmance, in part, of the Interim Emergency Order, Sunoco will be permitted to resume operation of ME1. While Sunoco’s injunction regarding further construction on ME2 and ME2X will be continued, we note that the status quo reflects that construction is presently halted. Therefore, the limited continuation of the stay in this matter under the facts of this Complaint do not support imposition of a bond. See, e.g., Pa. PUC v. Snyder Brothers, Inc., Docket No. C-2014-2402746 (Order entered July 30, 2015); Palmerton Telephone Company v. Global NAPs South, Inc., Docket No. C-2009-2093336 (Order entered August 3, 2010); Buffalo-Lake Erie Wireless Systems Co., LLC Petition for Emergency Order, Docket No. P-2009-2150008 (Order entered January 14, 2010). Accordingly, we shall deny Sunoco’s request. E. Preconditions to Resume Construction of ME2 and ME2X We affirm the ALJ’s grant of emergency relief to halt the construction for ME2 and ME2X, and further require certain measures to ensure the protection of public safety as a precondition for a Commission Order authorizing Sunoco to resume construction. Pursuant to our statutory authority to regulate the Gas and Transportation utilities and to ensure the public safety as it may be impacted by the construction of ME2 and ME2X, it is critical that Sunoco established adequate evidence of practices for public