(3) Range Range, as noted, in its Brief, fully supports the position of Sunoco Amicus 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 167 A.3d 307 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017); Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline L.P., appeal 179 A.3d 456 (Pa. 2018). denied The primary concern of this Commission is the safety of the public as well as the safety of the utility workers. Docket No. See Pa. PUC v. York Co., 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., when, in fact, the Commission authorized resumption of the operations of May 3 Order ME1 when the halted. operations in March 2018. Ex Parte Emergency Order 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. Brief of Range See Amicus Curiae
(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
1571901.docx