insufficient to give the Commission jurisdiction over a Section 619 petition, because FERC regulation of petroleum pipelines is regulation as a common carrier, not as a public utility. CCWGT R. Exc. at 11. WGT In its Replies to Exceptions, WGT states various reasons why it believes proposed Mariner East project does not meet the definition of a public utility Sunoco’s under the Code and Pennsylvania law. WGT avers that, until Sunoco applies for a Certificate for the project and indicates a legal basis for its plan to provide intrastate public utility service, its Amended Petition is not supported or timely. WGT R. Exc. at First, WGT contends that Sunoco has not shown that the proposed project will serve the public in Pennsylvania, as the capacity that will be available for intrastate shippers is an open question, which WGT submits cannot properly be addressed in a Section 619 petition. at 7-8. Id. Second, WGT contends that Certificate authorizing different Sunoco’s services is irrelevant to the service Sunoco intends to provide through the Mariner East pipeline. WGT states that Sunoco is required to amend its Certificate or to obtain a new Certificate, pursuant to Section 1102(a)(1) of the Code, 66 Pa. C.S. § 1102(a)(1), because, according to WGT, Sunoco will be providing service of a different nature. at Id. 8. WGT cites to two Pennsylvania cases in support of its argument that Sunoco must go through an additional application proceeding in order to add services or territory not originally included in its Certificate. WGT avers that current Certificate does Sunoco’s not pertain to west to east transportation of propane or ethane or to the pressure and other conditions that will apply to the Mariner East project and, as such, Sunoco does not have authorization for the proposed service. at 8, 9, 10-15. WGT also avers that safety Id.
insufficient to give the Commission jurisdiction over a Section 619 petition, because FERC regulation of petroleum pipelines is regulation as a common carrier, not as a public utility. CCWGT R. Exc. at 11. WGT In its Replies to Exceptions, WGT states various reasons why it believes Sunoco’s proposed Mariner East project does not meet the definition of a public utility under the Code and Pennsylvania law. WGT avers that, until Sunoco applies for a Certificate for the project and indicates a legal basis for its plan to provide intrastate public utility service, its Amended Petition is not supported or timely. WGT R. Exc. at First, WGT contends that Sunoco has not shown that the proposed project will serve the public in Pennsylvania, as the capacity that will be available for intrastate shippers is an open question, which WGT submits cannot properly be addressed in a Section 619 petition. Id. at 7-8. Second, WGT contends that Sunoco’s Certificate authorizing different services is irrelevant to the service Sunoco intends to provide through the Mariner East pipeline. WGT states that Sunoco is required to amend its Certificate or to obtain a new Certificate, pursuant to Section 1102(a)(1) of the Code, 66 Pa. C.S. § 1102(a)(1), because, according to WGT, Sunoco will be providing service of a different nature. Id. at 8. WGT cites to two Pennsylvania cases in support of its argument that Sunoco must go through an additional application proceeding in order to add services or territory not originally included in its Certificate. WGT avers that Sunoco’s current Certificate does not pertain to west to east transportation of propane or ethane or to the pressure and other conditions that will apply to the Mariner East project and, as such, Sunoco does not have authorization for the proposed service. Id. at 8, 9, 10-15. WGT also avers that safety
1324005.docx