Carolyn Elefant has been invited to speak at the prestigious and wildly popular ALI-CLE Conference on Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation, to be held in Palm Springs, California, January 24-26, 2019. Carolyn will present on the panel entitled Pipelines I – Where You Haven’t Gone Before: New Approaches to Challenging the Take scheduled for January 25, 2019. You may download a copy of Carolyn’s summary of emerging challenges to eminent domain takings for FERC pipelines here:
The firm represents Catherine Holleran and her family who made headlines a few years back when Constitution Pipeline agents, accompanied by armed marshals stormed the property to fell 558 trees for a pipeline that was ultimately denied a key permit by New York regulators. Here are the papers that we’ve filed seeking a return of the property and payment for full restoration of the property, compensation for lost business and other damages.
Petition to Rescind Certificate (June 2018)
Motion to Dissolve Injunction (July 2018)
Holleran Declaration (July 2018)
Constitution Response (July 2018)
Holleran Reply (Aug 2018)
Today, the Law Offices of Carolyn Elefant submitted these comments in response to the FERC Notice of Inquiry on the Certificate Policy Statement. The Firm’s comments are based on Ms. Elefant’s former experience as a FERC attorney advisor along with eight years of work as a landowner rights attorney in the FERC pipeline arena. The comments may be viewed here.
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017, the Law Offices of Carolyn Elefant, on behalf of Bold Alliance and more than 55 landowners filed this historic lawsuit against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Mountain Valley Pipeline and Atlantic Coast Pipeline challenging the constitutionality of the use of eminent domain to take property for FERC-approved pipelines. Although eminent domain has long been used by public utilities, changes in the gas industry in the form of deregulation and overseas export opportunities call into question whether use of eminent domain is constitutional when pipelines no longer serve a public use. News coverage of the lawsuit is available here. For additional information, contact Carolyn Elefant at email@example.com.
Massachusetts newspaper the Recorder, ran an article Sunday, March 27th, 2016 mentioning STOP and their opposition to the Tennessee Gas Pipeline project. Some key excerpts from the article:
“The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is asking for assurances from Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. as it considers allowing the company to begin clearing trees for the Connecticut Expansion Project.”
“Meanwhile a group of project opponents in the Berkshire County town of Sandisfield, which would be affected by the pipeline looping project, have formally asked FERC to deny TGP’s request to begin cutting, saying it hasn’t obtained a permit required under the federal Clean Waters [sic] Act.”
“Sandisfield Taxpayers Opposing the Pipeline… in its filing with [FERC] on Friday, writes, ‘At the outset, Tennessee admits in its request that it has not, in fact, obtained all of the federal authorizations which it requires in order to proceed. Despite this, it attempts to gloss over its lack of authorization by focusing on the authorizations it has received. For example, Tennessee states in its Request that it will not require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 … for its proposed tree clearing activities. Under normal circumstances, tree clearing with hand-held equipment during March and April might not “rut soil or cause damage to the root systems.” However, this premise assumes that the ground will be frozen during the times allotted. Tennessee ignores the fact that this past winter has been anything but “usual.”’