Marple and Residents File New Appeal but PECO Reliability Station May Be Built Anyway
Marple Township and the two Marple residents who have challenged the construction of a PECO Reliability Station on Sproul Road are back in the Commonwealth Court with a new appeal asking it again to overturn the Pennsylvania Utility Commission’s approval of the project on environmental grounds.
In the meantime, the Commonwealth Court and the Court of Common Pleas have declined to pause the construction of the station. It appears that PECO will go ahead with the construction of the project but has not provided a date.
PECO had sent residents notices on Feb. 25 telling them construction would begin on March 3. Marple and the residents filed the new appeal the on Feb. 26 and construction had not begun as of March 26. PECO’s public information office and PUC’s attorneys failed to return the Clearinghouse’s voicemails and emails asking whether construction is going forward.
The station consists of two buildings at the intersection of Sproul Road and Cedar Grove Road that would receive natural gas from a new 11.5-mile gas pipeline, step down the pressure and convey it directly to end-users in the immediate area.
In addition to the township, two residents, Ted Uhlman and Julie Baker, who represent the Marple Safety Coalition, have been fighting the reliability station since 2019 when PECO first announced the project.
Marple Township denied zoning variances for the facility in 2020 and PECO went to the PUC to negate the need for zoning permits. In 2021 the PUC ruled in favor of PECO, allowing the facility to be constructed, and Marple appealed that decision to the Commonwealth Court.
They argued then that the PUC had failed to conduct a “constitutionally sound environmental review” under the Environmental Rights Amendment (ERA), Article I, section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The PUC argued that it was not required to do so.
The Commonwealth Court agreed with the township and residents and remanded the decision back to the PUC to reconsider its approval of the project under the ERA.
Last September the PUC again approved PECO’s permit, finding that PECO’s environmental impact study was adequate under the ERA, leading to the current appeal.
In the new appeal, both the township and the residents, in separate briefs, argue that the PUC’s analysis of environmental factors was inadequate to meet the “constitutionally sound environmental review” standard and therefore was in error and should be reversed.
Marple argues that the PUC dismissed the township’s concerns about emissions of nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and particulate matter under the Clean Air Act, calling the emissions “minimal.” It also discounted the risks of a potential explosion to nearby residences and businesses.
Moreover, the briefs say the PUC failed to require PECO to prove the necessity of building the station or to consider safer alternate sites, such as a portion of the Delco Woods tract (the closed Don Guanella School), which is further away from homes and businesses.
The residents, represented by Devin McDougall of EarthJustice, go a step further and argue that the PUC failed to consider the negative impact of the station on climate change, which they contend is an integral part of an environment evaluation.
In their brief, the residents say they had presented expert testimony and other evidence that the station would emit greenhouse gases, either through leaks or the end users’ combustion of the gases, that would contribute to climate change.
They cited the 2021 Pennsylvania Climate Action Plan, which stated, “Climate risks and related impacts in Pennsylvania could be severe, potentially causing increased infrastructure disruptions, higher risks to public health, economic impacts and other changes” unless the commonwealth took action to mitigate those changes.
The Environmental Rights Amendment requires the PUC, as one of the public’s responsible trustees, to consider the impact of climate change, an obligation it cannot push off onto another agency, the residents say.
The PUC and PECO’s briefs in response are due to be filed April 28. ~ Jodine Mayberry for the Clearinghouse.