palmetto pipeline final order

7/24/2019 Palmetto Pipeline Final Order

1/15

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTYSTATE OF GEORGIA

PALMETTO PRODUCTS PIPE LINE )LLC, )

)Petitioner, )

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION FILE) NO.2015CV262194)

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF )TRANSPORT ATION, RUSSELL R. )MCMURRA Y, COMMISSIONER, )

)Respondents, )

and )

MILLHA VEN COMPANY, LLC, MILLS )TRACT, LLC, CARLTON GILL, OLIN S. )FRASER, SUSAN B. MOSELEY, ALAN B. )ZIPPERER, JANIS ZIPPERER BEVILL, )KATHY ZITTROUER, HENRY S. )MORGAN, PINE HOPE HOLDINGS, LLC, )

POLLARD LUMBER CO ., INC ., )SAVANNAH RIVERKEEPER, )

OGEECHEE RIVERKEEPER, )ALTAMAHA RIVERKEEPER, )SATILLA RIVERKEEPER, THE CENTER )FOR SUSTAINABLE COAST, and )COLONIAL OIL INDUSTRIES, INC. )

)Intervenors . )

FINAL ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

The above-sty led case came before the Court for a hearing on November 13,20 15 on the

Petition for Review from the denia l of Petitioner Palmetto Products Pipe Line LLC's

( Petitioner or Pa lmetto ) application to the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of

Fulton County Superior Cou ***EFILED***R

Date: 2/29/2016 7:47:58 PM

Cathelene Robinson, Clerk


2/15

Tran sporta tion for a certific ate of public convemen ce and nece ssity Such a certificate is a

prerequi site befor e Palm etto may u se the State 's power of emin ent domain to bu ild a proposed

pip e line. For th e reason s stated bel ow , the Court finds that th e Commissioner 's Fin al Decision

denyin g Palmetto's application is supported in th e record by substant ial evid ence and mu st be

af firmed . The refor e, Palmetto' s Pet ition is hereby D EN I E D and the Commissioner's denial of

the certificate is her eby AF FIRM E D.

I. BAC K GROU N D

Petitioner Palme tto Product s Pipe Line LL C is a subsidia ry of Kinder Mor gan , In c.

( Ki nder Mor gan ), the lar gest energy infra structur e comp any in the United Sta tes. Kinder

Mor gan owns an in ter est in or operat es approximate ly 80,000 miles of pipelines thr oughout th e

Uni ted States, including over 3,000 mil es of pipelin es in Georgia. Throug h thi s network of

pipe lin es, K inder Morga n tra nsports a va riety of energy resour ces , includin g na tu ra l gas, refined

petrol eum pr oduc ts, crud e oil, and carbon dioxide.

On Febru ary 13, 2015, Palmetto filed an applica tion with th e Georgia Departm ent of

Tran spo rta tion ( GDOT ) for a certificate of publi c convenience an d necessit y pur suant to

O C.G.A. 22-3-83 for its proposed Palmetto Pipelin e Project, a cont empl ated 360-mile

petroleum pipeline that would run from Belton , Sou th Ca rolin a to Jacksonv ille, Florida. If built ,

th e pipeline would cross 210 miles of property along th e Georgia coast. The certific ate is a

prerequi site und er O.C.G.A. 22-3-83 bef or e a pipelin e company may exercise th e Sta te of

Geor gia's sov ereign pow er of emin ent dom ain over privat e pr operty for purpo ses of constructin g

a p etrol eum pip elin e on pr ivate property in Georgia.

To receive a certifica te under O.C.G.A. 2 2-3-8 3, an applic ant mu st de mon strate, among

CAF N : 2015 CV 262194 Page 2 of 14


3/15

other thin gs, that construction of the pipelin e is ju stified, not only by a public use and

conven ience, but also by a public necessity that ju stifies the u se of the po wer of eminent domain

O.e.O .A. 2 2-3-83 (b)(1). Th e dete rmin ation of whether the pipeli ne comp any h as m ade an

adequ ate show ing of publi c conve nience and pu blic necessity is entru sted in the first in stance to

the Commission er of ODOT or h is design ee.

In this case , followin g six publi c information m ee tings, two of fic ia l pu blic hearings, and

considera tion of various submi ssions by Palmetto and th e public , the Commissioner of ODOT

concluded th at construction of Pa lm e tt o's pipeline w ould not constitu te a publi c conven ience and

publi c neces sity that would ju stify the u se of eminent domain and accordin gly denied Palmet to's

applic ation

Palmetto now pet it ions thi s Cou rt to overtu rn the Commissioner' s decision un der

O.C.O.A. 22-3-83( d). T h at code section provides th a t the denial of th e certificate may be

rev iewed by a ju dge of th e superior court of th e county in wh ic h the pipe line com pa ny has an

ag en t and place of doin g bu sin ess and furth er pr ovides th at [t]he action of the commi ssioner

shall be affirmed if supporte d by substant ial ev iden ce. Palmett o conte nds th at th e

Commissioner's conclusion is not supported by evidence in th e record and is clea rly errone ous ,

a rguing th a t O DOT ignored th e only reliable evidence be fore it rega rdin g th e need for th e

pr oposed pr oject and there f ore reached a re sult th at was not supp ort ed by the recor d. Pa lmett o

a lso argues th a t ODOT appli ed an unfa ir pr oce ss that did not afford Palme tto an oppo rtunit y to

address publi c comm ents opposin g the issuan ce of a certifica te, f ailed to f ollow past prec edent ,

and applied an inappr opriat e standard to its consideration o t h e applicatio n .

ODOT oppo ses Pa lmetto's pe tit ion or rev iew , arguing that th e Commi ssioner's decision

C AF N 2015C V262194 Page 3 of 14


4/15

is supported by substantial record evidence , including the ev idence cited in the Commissioner 's

own decision that fuel demand in Georgia is decreasing. In addition , GDOT contends th at

Palmetto has withheld from the record pricing and rate information that would have permitted

the Commissioner to make a determination of any price benefit to Georgia con sumer s. GDOT

also argues that the Commis sioner followed the statutoril y required procedures correctly and

applied appropriate standards GDOT points out th at Palmetto ha s not preserved its claims of

procedural error , as it never objected to the Commissioner concerning the proces s that wa s

followed and made no proffer of how a different proces s or different evidence could have

changed the Commissioner 's conclusions

Finally , the Court has separately granted the motions to intervene of several intervenors

that ha ve mo ve d for interv ention in thi s action. Th e int erv enor s also oppo se Palmetto' s petition

for rev ie w, arguing , similarl y to GDOT , that th e Commi ssion er 's deci sion is supported b y

sub stanti al record evidence that the propo sed pipeline would not serv e a public ne cessit y , and

th at th e Commi ssion er re ached hi s decision b y applyin g a prop er procedur e.

II. DISCUSSIO N

A. Legal Standard

O.C G.A. 22-3-83( d) pro vides that the d enial of a certificate of publ ic conv enience and

nec es sity to a pipeline company m ay be rev iewed by a jud ge of the superior court of the count y

in which th e pipeline comp any ha s an agent and place of doing busines s. The review shall be

determined on the ba sis of the record before the commi ssioner , and [t]h e action of the

commi ssioner shall be affirmed if supported b y sub stantial evidenc e. O.C.G.A. 22 -3- 83(d).

The sub stantial evidence stand ard under Georgi a law is an any-e vidence standard

CAFN : 2015CV262 194 Page 4 of 14


5/15

[t]he court in reviewing administrative decision s shall not substitute its judgment for that of the

[agency] if there is any evidence to support its findings Georgia Public Se rvice Comm v .

South ern Bell 254 Ga. 2 44, 246 (1985) (citation omitted). In applying this standard and

reviewing the admini strati ve decision , the finding s as to the facts, if supported by evidence

and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclu sive on this Court , and the factual determination s ..

. must be affirmed if there is any evidence to support them. Thomas v. Butle r 330 Ga. App.

67 5, 676 (2015) (citation omitted). This Court is not authori zed to weigh the evidence and

substitute its factfindings for those of the administrative trier of fact. d.

B. Analysis

1. The Commissioner 's Decision is Supported by Substantial Ev idence

T he Commi ssioner issued a four-pa ge decision that cited specific record evidenc e and

made particul arized finding s of f act. On the fir st pag e of the decision , the Commi ssione r noted

his consideration of , among other thin gs, Palmett o's submi ssion s, includin g its initi al applic a tion

and supplement al inform ation , comm ent s provid ed durin g th e public information me etings and

public hearing s, and additional comment s receiv ed through regular mail and e-mail. Th e

Commi ssioner also noted his specific consideration of publicl y available information publi shed

in various source s, w hich are in the record before the Court , includin g information publi shed by

the U.S. Energy Inf ormation Administr ation (' EIA '), fuel consumption projection information

utili zed by the Offic e of Planning and Bud ge t for bud geting purpo ses, which is provided by the

State Economist and th e Georgia Department of Re venue ('GDOR '), Federal Highwa y

Admini stra tion ('FHWA ') data on past fuel con sumption in Georgia , and other readil y available

inform ation . (Deci sion a t 1.) The next thre e page s of th e Commis sioner' s deci sion evidence his

CAFN 2015CV262 94 Page 5 of 14


6/15

con sideration of th ese submi ssion s and other record mat eri al and hi s spe cific findin gs that the

pr opo sed pip eline w ou ld n ot serve a public con venience and a publi c nec es sity. Firs t , the

ev idenc e re flects an ove rall d ownwa rd trend in fuel consumpti on and th e id ea tha t the pipeline is

needed to add ress curr ent and future increa sed dem ands is simply not supp ort ed. (Deci sion at 2-

3.) Second , [t]here is no apparent lack of competition in th e releva nt m ark et. (Decision at 3.)

T hird , as a res ult of the prop ose d pip elin e, comp etition could actua lly decre ase in th e a re a.

(Dec ision at 3.) Fourth , [t]her e is no reason to belie ve n or is there an y ev idenc e that th e

prese nc e of th e pip eline in the market alone will affe ct price s in th e regio n. (De cis ion at 3.)

Each of th es e ac tu a l conclu sions is supp orted by record evid ence Multipl e sour ces in th e

record, includin g inform ation fr om th e Unit ed St ate s Ene rgy In fo rm a tion Adm inis trati on

( EIA ), which is a edera l agency tha t collec ts, analyzes, and di sse min a tes en ergy informa tion,

and the Georgia Depart men t of Revenue stro ngly sugg est th at demand or fue l in Georgia is

dec reasing and is exp ecte d to continu e to decrease . T his eviden ce reflec ts that total fue l

con sump tion in Georgia bega n trending dow n ward as far bac k as 2002. (R. 5282 ) Fu el

con su mpt ion fell eve n whil e Geor gia's pop ul ati on was grow in g. For examp le , from 2002 to

2014, tota l popu latio n grow th in Georgia wa s 18.1 % while tota l fue l con su mp tion dec lin ed 14%.

(R 5077,5282 .) Th e ollowing gra ph , wh ich is in th e record at 528 6, shows the rela ti ve chan ges

in pe tr oleum sales and in p opul a ti on growt h ove r th e p ast 15 years:

CAFN 2015CV 262194 Page 6 of 14


7/15

GEORG A POPULA TION GROWTH AND FUEL CONSUMPTION

2000 201410,500 000

10,000,000

9,500 000

9,000,000co

;a.Q

8,500,000

8,000,000

7,5 00 ,000

7.000.0001 00'J 2001 } O'J7 20 03 20()ll 2005 2006 20 07 2008 2009 201 0 2011 2012 2013 2014

Ge orgia r'orn atton Georgia TOUlI Fuel Co nsump o n Source Data : U S EIA and U S C e n s u s

500

17.5eo

515 5 0 0 ~

~E;;'C

5 500 ~

~

14,500

13,500

17.500

Accor dingly , th e rec ord evidence supp ort s th e Commi ssioner 's conclu sion that there is an

ove rall downwar d tren d in fu el consumption (Dec ision at 2.)

Additio na lly, mult ipl e record sourc es expect the downwa rd tre nd to con tin u e. For

exam p le , data and reports from th e ErA and fr om the Georgia Departm ent of Reven u e pr edict a

continu in g dow n war d trend in fuel consumpti on. As th e EIA conclu de s in a recent report

entitled Annu al Energy Outl ook 2015 with projec tion s to 2040 , [c onsumpti on of petroleum

product s across a ll sectors in 2040 is unch an ged from 2013 levels, as mot or gasoline

consump tion in th e tran sportation sect or declin es as a result of a 70% increase in th e av erag e

efficiency of on-road lig ht-dut y ve h icles, , . , which m ore th an offse ts projected growth in

vehicle m iles trave led (VMT). (R. 53 8 7.) Th e G eor gia Departm ent of Reve nue also predicts

CAFN 2015 CV262194 Pa ge 7 of 14


8/15

th a t fuel u sage w ill decline steadil y until 2020. T his data sho w that fuel con sumption in Georgi a

in 2016 will be approximately 8% lower than the 2006 high , and th e 20 20 fuel con sumption

foreca st is approximate ly 9% low er than 2006 lev els. (R 2776.) Other record evidence supports

the se pr ediction s as w ell. In it s 20 15 Report enti tled Outlook for Energ y A View to 2040

ExxonMobil stat ed th at America 's pe tro leum demand actuall y is falling because the countr y is

u sing ener gy mo re efficiently in its car s and elsewhere. R. 6190.) A ga in , the record ha s

evidence supportin g the Commis sioner 's conclu sion that the pipe line is no t needed to address

cu rrent and futur e increased demands. (De cision at 2-3.

The ev idenc e also support s the Commi ssion er 's concl u sion that there is no rea son to

believe nor is there any ev idence that the pre sence of the pipe line in the market alone wi ll affect

[con sumer ] price s in th e region (De cision at 3; R. 2383.) The record ev id ence is that Palm etto

has repeat edly and expres sly disclaimed an abilit y to cont rol price s at the pump . See R. 3003

(Palmetto 'S letter to the Commi ssione r adm ittin g th at Palm ett o w ill not own the pr oduct

tra nsported and therefore ha s no abi lit y to raise or lowe r fue l pri ces); R. 10 349 (a dmi ssion by

Kind er Mor gan offici a l at pub lic h earin g that Kind er Mo rga n ca nnot guar ante e pri ces will go

down be cause th ey don 't contro l gas pric es ).) Ind eed , Palm etto has affirm at ive ly redacted rate

inform a tion from submis sion s it m ade to the Commi ssioner th at wou ld permit a comp arison of

pip elin e rates to ra tes ch a rged on ex isting infra structure. See R . at 46 85 -86 (re dactin g ra te

inform ation from submi ss ion s to the Commi ssioner) ) Furt h ermore , subm ission s by memb ers of

th e pub lic sugge st tha t the pre se nce of th e propo sed pip elin e, which is expected to deli ver

sufficient fue l supp lies to supp lant the entire exi sting suppl y of fue l in Sa v annah and Augu sta ,

could actua lly ca use an incr ease in con sum er price s. (R. 1253- 5 5.) Thu s, alt h ou gh Palme tt o

CAFN 2015 CV262194 Page 8 of 14


9/15

argues that fundamental principl es of economics mean that increa sed suppl y wi ll. .. reduce

fuel pric es, that argum ent is not supported w ith record evidence of pricing or ra te information

which would permit th e Commission er or th is Cou rt to eva luate whe ther in act fuel pri ces might

be reduced as a re sult of the prop ose d pipeline. Accordin g ly, the Court find s th e record support s

the Commi ssione r' s conclusion that Palmetto did not make a sh owing of public nec es sit y by

demon strating a de crease in con sumer price s.

2. Palmetto would hav e the Court im properly sub stitut e it s act finding s forthose of the GDOT.

Rather than cont estin g whether th e Commi ssioner h ad record evidence support in g his

conclu sion s, Palmetto instead fault s the Commi ssion er for ignor[ing] the only reli able evid enc e

bef ore [him ] rega rd ing the n eed for thi s pr oject, argu ing th at th e C ommi ssioner th ere or e

re ach ed a result that was not supp orted by the re cord . (Pet itioner 's Merits brief at 2-3 .) In

particular , Palme tto argues that th e Commi ssion er gave too m u ch weight to re cent data publi sh ed

by the EIA and b y th e Georgia Depart men t of Reve nu e, preferring th is 2015 data over a 2010

report sen t by Pa lmett o to the Commi ssione r in suppl ement a l m aterial submi tte d in support of its

appli cation. Pa lm etto also argues tha t th e Commi ssion er ign ored othe r evidence, su ch as the

m arket po we r of ex isting suppl ier s and a purport ed reduc tion in high way truc k trip s, which

Pa lmett o claims support its a pplic ation In respon se, GDO T and the intervenors a rgue th a t th e

predi ction s in th e 2010 rep ort submitt ed by Pa lm etto are con tradict ed by actual , more recent

data. GDO T and th e intervenors also point to evidence in th e record of an existin g, rob ust

com petition in the sup ply m arke ts and to information su gg estin g that the p ropose d pip elin e w ill

not cau se gains in sa fet y by reducin g hig hway tru ck trip s.

Th e Court declin es to eva lu ate th e re lative stre ngth of the evidence Pa lmett o claims the

C AFN 2015 CV262 194 Page 9 of 14


10/15

Commi ssioner ignored becau se to do so w ou ld be in violation of the established ru le of

admini strati ve rev iew that the superior court is not auth orized to weigh the ev idence and

sub stitute it s actfindin gs for tho se of the admini strati ve trier of fact. T homas, 330 Ga. App . at

676. T he evidence is th a t the Commi ssion er spec ifica lly consid e red Palmetto 's proffered report

and othe r inform ation and rejected it , concl udin g that it was contradicted by several source s,

includin g mor e recent , actu al da ta. (Deci sion at 2; R. 2382 .) Th e Commi ssio ner 's weighin g of

the evidence cannot be sec ond guess ed by th is Court on re view. See Thomas, 330 Ga. App. at

676; Ne Georgia Med. Ctr . I nc v . Winder H MA, Inc 303 Ga App. 5 0, 5 5 - 56 (2010) (the court

does not re weigh the evide nce nor sub stitut e its own judgm ent as to the we ight of the ev idence).

A s stated above, th e Commi ssione r had record evidence support in g his deci sion , and the Co urt

w ill not acce pt Palmetto's in vitation or the Co urt to now re-we igh t ha t ev id ence in this ju dicia l

review .

3. Palme tto's enum era tion s of procedura l err or fai l.

Pa lmetto also urges th e Court t o ov ertu rn th e Commi ssioner 's denial of th e certificate on

a claim of proce du ra l err or. Spec ific ally, Palm ett o argues th at GDO T br oke from past

pr eceden t (Pet. Br. at 5) and denied Palm etto an opp ort unity to re spond to publi c comment s

submitted t o GDO T in opp osition to the pro ject. Pa lmetto also cla im s GDOT violated th e

Georgia Open Re cord s Act an d arbit ra ril y extend ed th e deadlin e or the public t o mak e

comm ent s. Fin ally, Pa lmett o argu es th at the Co mm is sione r applied the incorrect stand a rd s in

th is cas e, appl yin g those of an u nre lated statute gove rning na tura l gas p ip elin es. Th e Court find s

these enum eration s of error are with out merit.

As a pr elimi nary matt er , Pa lm etto cites no auth ority for th e pr op os ition th a t GDO T w as

CAF N: 2015 CV 262194 Page 10 of 14


11/15

required to follow precedent in con sidering Palmetto 's application. Furth er , the precedent

complained of is a single application b y anoth er pipeline company , m ade seven years before

Palmetto 's application . In respon se to Palmetto' s precedential argument , GDOT point s out that

the prior applic a ti on is distingui shable in several ways from Palmetto 's application , and that th e

certificate granted to the prior applicant ha s since been re voked . GDOT , not thi s Court , is in th e

be st po sition to evalu a te whether it s sev en-y ear prior consideration of an application has

rele vance to Palm etto's application , and thi s Court will not sub stitute it s judgment for that of

GDOT

As to Palmetto 's contenti on th at the Commi ssioner appli ed the incorrect lega l st andard by

considering factor s from an unrelated statut e, O .C.G.A . 46 -4- 25 regardin g int ra-state natural

gas pip elin es, that claim of err or a lso ail s. Firs t, the Comm iss ion er states on th e ace of his

ord er th at he h ad looke d to tha t statut e or ge nera l re erenc e and guida nce only (Decision at

2), which is entir ely consistent with Georgia law g overnin g admin istra tive interpr etation of rule s

and regul ation s. See, e g., Walker v . D OT 279 Ga. Ap p. 287, 29 4 (2006) (not ing de erence to an

ag ency's rul e int erpre tation and permi tt ing age ncy to con sid er unwritt en actors in e ec tin g it s

int erp re tation). Se cond , Palmetto d oes not exp lain ho w the act or s in O.C.G.A. 46-4 -25,

considerin g, for example , th e adequac y of existin g gas pip eline s or distribution syste ms and th e

volume of demand or gas and w hether such dem and rea sonably to be anticipat ed in th e future

can support alread y existin g gas pip eline and distributi on system s, ar e in con sisten t w ith th e

show ing o f publi c necessity th at an appli cant mu st m ake pur suant to O C.G.A. 22-3-83. T he

Commi ssion er 's int erpr eta tion of publi c necess it y under O.C.G A. 22 -3-83 is entitl ed to

de erence and app ears reasonable h ere.

CAFN: 20I 5CV262I94 Page 1 1 of 14


12/15

As to Pa lmetto's claims tha t it was de nied an opportun ity to respond to pu blic comments

submitted to GnOT in opposit ion to the project , the Court finds these claims are similarly

without merit. O.C.G.A. 22-3-83 pro vide s for an application proce ss, not a contested proce ss

with di scovery or its equi valent. N othing in the statute provides an applicant with an opportunity

to recei v e and to respond to all public comment s made to Gn OT regar ding the applicant's

proposal , nor does it prov ide for a discove ry mechan ism by which the applicant is to receive all

pu blic comment s. I

Further, even if Palmetto could ha ve demanded a right to rece ive and comment on all

public comments , Pa lmetto w as on not ice that it wa s not rece iving publ ic comment s and wou ld

not have an opportunity to respon d to a ll comment s made Palmetto , howe v er , failed to object to

tha t proc ess . Palmetto ha s thu s not pr eserv ed any enum era tion of error relatin g to process for

th is Court 's review. See, e g. Geor g ia Rea l E s tat e C ommiss ion v Burn ett e, 243 Ga . 516, 516

(1979) (findin g err or in superior court 's pa ssin g upon objec tion s ra ised for the fir st time in

supe rior court , ra th er th an in administr ative proceedin g); Geor g ia Bd. of D entis try v P ence, 223

Ga App. 603, 607 (1996) (stating the ru le that scope of judici al re view of admini strati ve

proc eedin g is limited to those objectio ns upon which th e agency h as had an opportunity to rule)

I P a lmetto arg ues th a t thi s Court sh ould rev erse the Commi ssio n e r 's d ec ision beca use of a cla im ed v iolation of th eGeorgia Open Record s A ct ( GORA ). Th e record do es n ot in clude suffi cient inf o rm a tion or the C ourt to

determin e w h eth e r GDO T v iola ted GORA , as Pa lme tto ha s not dem on str a ted w h a t in form a tion th e age n cy f ail ed topro vi de. In an y event , ev en if th ere was a GORA v iola tion, th e record does n ot pr ov id e a bas is to overturn th eCommi ss ion er 's dec ision P a lm e tt o c ites no auth orit y or the pr op osition tha t an agen cy d ecision ca n be ove rturn edbecause of a claim ed violation of GORA, and this is n ot th e pr oper proce dur e in w h ich to chall en ge a claim edGORA v iolation Th e prop e r pro cedur e for cha llen gin g a GORA v iolation is an act ion und er O.C.G.A. 50-18-73 Th e relief av ai lab le to a pe tition e r und er that statut e is limit ed to an ass essm ent of r easonabl e attorn ey's f ees an dothe r liti gation cos ts reasonabl y incurr ed but only upon a show in g th at th e respond ent acted w ith o ut sub stanti a lju stifica tion .. in n ot comp ly in g with a p ro pe r requ est. O.C G A. 50-18-73(b) T he Court is aw ar e o f noauthority pe rmitt ing P a lmett o to cl a im a GORA v iolat ion in th is pr oceedin g , or to see k any re lie f re la ted to itsappli ca tion for the pip e line b ased on a cl a imed GOR A violation

C AF N: 2015 CV 262194 Page 12 of 14


13/15

The record ev idence is that GDOT announ ced at a Ma y 7, 2015 hearin g, in which Pa lmetto

particip ated, that GDOT would accept and consider any written comment recei ved befor e Ma y

15, 2015, without an opportunit y for any of th e partie s to receive or respond to those comm ents.

Palm etto made no objection to that proc ess and in fact took advantage of the same proce ss by

m akin g its own submi ssion on May 15, 2015, the last day for comm ent. Under the cited

autho rity, both juri sdiction ally and u nder the doctrin e of wa iv er , Palm etto cannot in th is

proceedin g be heard to object to th e same pro cess it sought to use to its adva ntage in submittin g

its own last-da y submi ss ion s an d to which it did not object at th e tim e.

Fin ally, as expla ined a bov e, the record include s ev idence supportin g the Commi ssioner 's

decision that the propo sed pip eline would not serve a public con v en ienc e or a public necessity

th at would ju sti y the use of emin ent dom ai n. Palmett o has n ot proffe red any eviden ce nor

identified a diff erent procedur e that would ha ve result ed in a diff er ent outc ome. In the absence

of such a prof er , Pa lmetto's cla ims of error fail as a matte r of law. See, e.g., Pope v . Bd. of

Comm rs of Fulton Cty., 276 Ga App. 121, 126 (2005) (petit ion ers w ho took adv antage of an

opportunit y to pr ese nt a defense to th e Boa rd of Commi ssion ers but c laimed they lack ed

ade qu ate time to pre p ar e could n ot claim due process violation w here th ey did not indic ate wh at

addi tion al evidenc e, if any, th ey would h ave pr es ent ed h ad the y be en af ford ed more time to

prepare ).

III CONCLUSION

This Court 's cha rg e und er O.C.G.A 2 2-3-8 3(d) is only to eva luat e wheth er substanti al

record ev ide nc e supp orts th e Commi ssio n er 's den ial of th e a pplic ation . H aving conclu de d th at

the reco rd does support th e Commi ss ioner 's dec ision , and in the absen ce of a n y pro ff er by

CAFN 2 015CV262 94 Page 13 of 14


14/15

Palmetto as to how some different procedure or additional ev idence would have changed the

Commissioner 's decision , this Court finds that the Commissioner 's decision is adequately

supported by the record evidence and therefore AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner ,

and DENIES Palmetto's Petition for Re view.

SO ORDERED this ay of February, 2016

MBE M. ESMOND ADAMSJUDGE SUPE OR COURT OF FULTON COUNTYATLANT A JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

Submitted jointly by:Counsel for the Respondent and the Intervenors

CAFN : 2015 CV 262 194 Page 14 of 14


15/15

I N THE SU P E RIOR CO U RT OF F ULTON CO UN TY

ST TE OF E ORGI

) Civil Action File No : 2015CV262194PA LMETTO PRODUCTS PIP E LINE LLC,

Petition er

v.

GEORGIA DEPA RTM EN T OFTRANSPORTATION RUSS ELL R.MCM URRA Y, COMMISSIO NE R

R espond ent.

ORD E R GR N T I N G MOTIONS FOR INTERVEN T ION

Th e motion s and supportin g memoranda for inter ve ntion of Millh av en Compan y LLC,

Mill s Tract LLC Ca rlton Gill Olin S Fraser S usan B M oseley Alan B. Z ipperer Jan is

Zipperer Bev il l Kath y Zittrou er Henr y S. M organ Pin e Hope Holdin gs LLC and Pollard

Lum ber Co Inc. coll ective ly th e Lan downer Movan ts ); Sava nn ah Rive rkeeper, Ogeeche e

Riverk eeper A ltamah a Riverk eep er Satil la Riverkee per an d the Center or S ustain ab le Coast

(collectively, th e E nvi ronm ental Mo va nt s ); and Coloni a l Oil Indu stries Inc. ( Coloni a l O il )

havin g been read and consid ered and for good ca use shown, IT IS HERE Y ORD E RED tha t

th e Landowner Movan ts, Environm ent a l M ovan ts, and Coloni a l Oil a re hereby G R NT E D

leave to in terve ne in thi s action and are added as R espond en ts

SO ORD E R ED, thi s of Fe bruary, 2016

Jointly prepa red and submitt ed by Counse l for the Inte rve nors

Fulton County Superior Cou ***EFILED***R

Date: 2/29/2016 7:43:20 PM

Cathelene Robinson, Clerk

palmetto pipeline final order

Documents