Update December 21, 2023
All Main Briefs were due on December 15, 2023, and they are now available from the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission website. Reply Briefs are due on January 3, 2024, and links to those documents will be made available shortly thereafter.
Marple Brief
https://www.puc.pa.gov/pcdocs/1809420.pdf
Focuses mostly on the immediate environmental concerns of the location of the proposed facility, especially air quality, noise, and the Potential Impact Radius. There are plenty of references to Article One, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Environmental Rights Amendment, and the right to a clean enviroment.
Intervenors Baker and Uhlman Brief
https://www.puc.pa.gov/pcdocs/1809452.pdf
Focuses mostly on the larger downstream environmental concerns of the facility in that it is designed to allow expansion of residential natural gas consumption. Such an expansion will lead to more gas lines and more methane leakage, and, of course, is designed to support an increase in natural gas consumption at a time when global, national, state, and local governments have committed to reducing the consumption of natural gas in favor of electrification, in an effort to combat climate change
Amici Brief
https://www.puc.pa.gov/pcdocs/1809460.pdf
To the extent that the Marple Brief and the Intervenors Brief have different foci, this brief focuses on the legal issues that support both of the other briefs. Again, Artice One, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution is the keystone holding all of the arguments together, and no matter which approach seems more effective, the same legal standards suggest that the PUC needs, at least for this kind of infrastructure, a better process than "dueling experts".
PECO Brief
https://www.puc.pa.gov/pcdocs/1809424.pdf
Focuses on minimizing the need for a holistic approach to permitting, and assumes that not needing permits is a good enough way to approach the issue. Land use plans are irrelevant to PECO's desire to expand their residential natural gas consumption customer base. The PA Environmental Rights Amendment does not require a serious review of the issues. ("Dueling Experts" is good enough.)
Thank You Very Much!
None of this would be possible without your moral and financial support. Please visit http://www.marplesafe.com/donate.html for information about donating.
Marple Brief
https://www.puc.pa.gov/pcdocs/1809420.pdf
Focuses mostly on the immediate environmental concerns of the location of the proposed facility, especially air quality, noise, and the Potential Impact Radius. There are plenty of references to Article One, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Environmental Rights Amendment, and the right to a clean enviroment.
Intervenors Baker and Uhlman Brief
https://www.puc.pa.gov/pcdocs/1809452.pdf
Focuses mostly on the larger downstream environmental concerns of the facility in that it is designed to allow expansion of residential natural gas consumption. Such an expansion will lead to more gas lines and more methane leakage, and, of course, is designed to support an increase in natural gas consumption at a time when global, national, state, and local governments have committed to reducing the consumption of natural gas in favor of electrification, in an effort to combat climate change
Amici Brief
https://www.puc.pa.gov/pcdocs/1809460.pdf
To the extent that the Marple Brief and the Intervenors Brief have different foci, this brief focuses on the legal issues that support both of the other briefs. Again, Artice One, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution is the keystone holding all of the arguments together, and no matter which approach seems more effective, the same legal standards suggest that the PUC needs, at least for this kind of infrastructure, a better process than "dueling experts".
PECO Brief
https://www.puc.pa.gov/pcdocs/1809424.pdf
Focuses on minimizing the need for a holistic approach to permitting, and assumes that not needing permits is a good enough way to approach the issue. Land use plans are irrelevant to PECO's desire to expand their residential natural gas consumption customer base. The PA Environmental Rights Amendment does not require a serious review of the issues. ("Dueling Experts" is good enough.)
Thank You Very Much!
None of this would be possible without your moral and financial support. Please visit http://www.marplesafe.com/donate.html for information about donating.
The Technical Hearing is completed;
the Initial Decision will come in the beginning of 2024
(and don't worry about the new fence)
the Initial Decision will come in the beginning of 2024
(and don't worry about the new fence)
Recently, PECO had the temporary cyclone fencing replaced with permanent cyclone fencing. This does not mean that we have lost our case. The current case, still at the PA PUC, will not be decided until sometime in the spring, and it is expected that, whichever way the decision goes, there will be an appeal to the Commonwealth Court (again) that will take several additional months.
Tuesday, November 28, from 10AM until about 4PM was the last day of the Telephonic Technical Evidentiary Hearing in the case of Marple vs. PECO, and it was all about air quality. At one point, there were 31 callers on the line, which seems to me like a significant show of support, as residents let the court know of their concern about this case. The two air quality experts, with guidance from their respective lawyers, heatedly discussed the inputs and outputs of their air modelling programs.
So now, the real work begins:
Thank. You. Very. Much.
I am certain that the community support that has been shown over the past four years has made all the difference in the world. If PECO had known how strong a fight we would put up against this woefully misbegotten project, they definately would have chosen a different location.
MarpleSafe was started with a small group of local residents and a generous donation of $5,000. Since that time, we have spent those funds, along with other donations on yard signs, door flyers, business flyers, the web site, a mass mailing, and other similar expenses. Despite continued contributions, our bank balance has been holding steady at about $2,500 for a while, but we are now spending most of that to purchase Transcripts of the recent Telephonic Technical Evidentiary Hearings, as we prepare to write our Main Briefs and Amicus Briefs, etc.
This will bring our balance down under $1,000. Due to the activity of the recent hearings, within the past week, we have received six donations totaling $380, averaging $60 each. Please consider showing your support for our cause with (another?) financial contribution.
Please visit http://www.marplesafe.com/donate.html
For more background information, please see This Brief Review, and/or This TimeLine of Events
Tuesday, November 28, from 10AM until about 4PM was the last day of the Telephonic Technical Evidentiary Hearing in the case of Marple vs. PECO, and it was all about air quality. At one point, there were 31 callers on the line, which seems to me like a significant show of support, as residents let the court know of their concern about this case. The two air quality experts, with guidance from their respective lawyers, heatedly discussed the inputs and outputs of their air modelling programs.
So now, the real work begins:
- The legal teams on each side prepare Main Briefs and Amicus Briefs (due on December 15, 2023),
- Reply Briefs (due on January 3, 2024), Surrebuttal Briefs, and any other Briefs that they can think of.
- ALJ Long has stated that she will try to publish her Initial Decision ASAP, but I will be surprised if it comes out before the middle of February.
- Then there will be a round of Exceptions, with each side writing about how and why they disagree with different aspects of the Initial Decision.
- Eventually, The Full Commission will issue their Final Decision, agreeing or disagreeing, in whole or in part, with the Initial Decision. And that will be followed by another round of Exceptions.
- And of course, both sides then have the right to appeal the Final Decision to The Commonwealth Court, which will mean more Briefs, followed by Oral Arguments.
Thank. You. Very. Much.
I am certain that the community support that has been shown over the past four years has made all the difference in the world. If PECO had known how strong a fight we would put up against this woefully misbegotten project, they definately would have chosen a different location.
MarpleSafe was started with a small group of local residents and a generous donation of $5,000. Since that time, we have spent those funds, along with other donations on yard signs, door flyers, business flyers, the web site, a mass mailing, and other similar expenses. Despite continued contributions, our bank balance has been holding steady at about $2,500 for a while, but we are now spending most of that to purchase Transcripts of the recent Telephonic Technical Evidentiary Hearings, as we prepare to write our Main Briefs and Amicus Briefs, etc.
This will bring our balance down under $1,000. Due to the activity of the recent hearings, within the past week, we have received six donations totaling $380, averaging $60 each. Please consider showing your support for our cause with (another?) financial contribution.
Please visit http://www.marplesafe.com/donate.html
For more background information, please see This Brief Review, and/or This TimeLine of Events
PLEASE DONATE!
Since June 15, over $900 has been collected. It's a good start, but the goal is to pay for expert witnesses to support the defense of the Cedar Grove Corner.
Since June 15, over $900 has been collected. It's a good start, but the goal is to pay for expert witnesses to support the defense of the Cedar Grove Corner.
THE CLIMATE CONNECTION
At a time when we should be transitioning AWAY FROM Fossil Fuels, the proposed Gas Expansion Plant at the Corner of Sproul and Cedar Grove Roads is an investment in transitioning DEEPER INTO Residential Natural Gas Consumption.
At a time when we should be transitioning AWAY FROM Fossil Fuels, the proposed Gas Expansion Plant at the Corner of Sproul and Cedar Grove Roads is an investment in transitioning DEEPER INTO Residential Natural Gas Consumption.
The Pre-Hearing Conference was held
on WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, at 9AM
With more than 60 calls in attendance, there was a good show of support at the Pre-Hearing Conference, but the decisions made indicate that we have a difficult job in this court.
Review of the Second Case at the PUC
A review of some of the arguments made during the Evidentiary Hearings that were held on November 15, 15, 17, and 28.
A review of some of the arguments made during the Evidentiary Hearings that were held on November 15, 15, 17, and 28.
Precedent
On March 19, a seven member panel of PA Commonwealth Court judges unanimously decided that the PUC had erred in its decision, and remanded the case back to the PUC, with the following instructions:
"...that it issue an Amended Decision regarding Intervenor PECO Energy Company’s “Petition... . . . For a Finding Pursuant to 53 P.S. § 10619,”
which must incorporate the results of a constitutionally sound environmental impact review... "
On March 19, a seven member panel of PA Commonwealth Court judges unanimously decided that the PUC had erred in its decision, and remanded the case back to the PUC, with the following instructions:
"...that it issue an Amended Decision regarding Intervenor PECO Energy Company’s “Petition... . . . For a Finding Pursuant to 53 P.S. § 10619,”
which must incorporate the results of a constitutionally sound environmental impact review... "