Sunoco takes the position that a bond is not awarding which the Commission “damages,” is statutorily prohibited from doing. citing Id., Elkin v. Bell Telephone Company of 420 A.2d 371 (Pa. 1980). Pennsylvania, 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 Sunoco will be permitted to resume operation of Interim Emergency Order, ME1. While Sunoco’s injunction regarding further construction on ME2 and ME2X will be continued, we note that the reflects that construction is presently halted. status quo 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, Docket No. C-2014-2402746 (Order entered July 30, 2015); Inc., Palmerton Telephone Docket No. C-2009-2093336 (Order entered Company v. Global NAPs South, Inc., August 3, 2010); Buffalo-Lake Erie Wireless Systems Co., LLC Petition for Emergency Docket No. P-2009-2150008 (Order entered January 14, 2010). Accordingly, we Order, 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
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
1571901.docx