In the Pipeline
Kinder Morgan Pipeline Moves Forward
Houston pipeline operator Kinder Morgan recently prevailed in a legal battle against opponents of the Permian Highway Pipeline. U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pitman, Western District of Texas, Austin Division, struck down a request by opponents of the $2 billion pipeline project on February 14, 2020. The Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order halting construction of the pipeline through Texas Hill Country and over the Edwards Aquifer, an underground reservoir home to several threatened and endangered species of salamander, fish and insects. In an eight page order, Pitman wrote “Plaintiffs have failed to show that the potential harm has risen to the level of irreparable harm that would justify granting the extraordinary relief of a temporary restraining order.” Kinder Morgan still faces other legal challenges. The temporary restraining order was only one facet of an endangered species lawsuit filed February 5 against the company by the cities of Austin and San Marcos, Hays and Travis counties, the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Conservation District and four landowners. The company, its subcontractors and the project face a separate
federal lawsuit filed by five Hill Country landowners. Kinder Morgan released a statement that the company and the Permian Highway Pipeline project are in full compliance with the Endangered Species Act. “Permian Highway Pipeline’s environmental assessments, among other things, comprehensively considered those endangered species that could potentially be affected by the project, and our construction plans have been designed to minimize impacts to those species,” the company said. Construction is ongoing on the 42 inch Permian Highway Pipeline, which will move gas from the West Texas shale play and travel approximately 400 miles across the state through the Texas Hill Country to the Katy Hub near Houston. After settling a lawsuit with the City of Kyle last year, the company is only allowed to run natural gas through the pipeline. Kinder Morgan also noted that several long-term contracts with customers will require the pipeline to move the natural gas from West Texas to the Houston area.
Source: The Houston Chronicle (2/17/2020)
“Damaged Goods” Not Enough to Sway Third Circuit Court of Appeals (Pennsylvania)
These materials reflect only the personal views of the authors and are not individualized legal advice. It is understood that each case is fact-specific, and that the appropriate solution in any case will vary. Therefore, these materials may or may not be relevant to any particular situation. Thus, the authors and their law firm cannot be bound either philosophically or as representatives of their various present and future clients to the comments expressed in these materials. The presentation of these materials does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with the authors or their law firm. While every attempt was made to insure that these materials are accurate, errors or omissions may be contained therein, for which any liability is disclaimed.
gas pipeline decreased the value of the property crossed by the pipeline.
THE DETAILS: In early February, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the “damaged goods” approach to valuing prop- erty crossed by a pipeline. In UGI Sunbury LLC v. A Permanent Easement For 1.7575 Acres et al. , the appeals court vacated the trial court’s property valuation that was based on an expert’s opinion that the stigma of a natural
The expert largely based his opinion on anecdotes from his past employment in an appliance shop where he noticed customers valued undamaged property more than damaged property. Under his “damaged goods” theory,
7
G r o w t h T h r o u g h E d u c a t i o n - J a n u a r y / F e b r u a r y / M a r c h 2 0 2 0
Made with FlippingBook HTML5