UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________

No. 21-3356 ________________

ADELPHIA GATEWAY, LLC,

Appellant v.

PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL HEARING BOARD; THOMAS W. RENWAND; BERNARD A. LABUSKES, JR.; MICHELLE A. COLEMAN; STEVEN C. BECKMAN; WEST ROCKHILL TOWNSHIP; CLIFF COLE; PAMELA WEST; BRIAN WEIRBACK; KATHY WEIRBACK; TODD SHELLY; CHRISTINE SHELLY

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 1-21-cv-01241) District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner

Argued September 20, 2022 Before: AMBRO*, RESTREPO, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 14, 2023) Andrew T. Bockis (Argued) Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP 2 North Second Street Penn National Insurance Plaza, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Justin C. Danilewitz Patrick F. Nugent Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP 1500 Market Street Centre Square West, 38th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Blaine R. Feinauer Elizabeth U. Witmer Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP 1200 Liberty Ridge Drive Suite 200 Wayne, PA 19087

Counsel for Appellant

*Judge Ambro assumed senior status on February 6, 2023.

2 Michael D. Fiorentino (Argued) Law Office of Michael D. Fiorentino 42 E. 2nd Street Suite 200 Media, PA 19063

Counsel for Appellees

OPINION OF THIS COURT ____________ AMBRO, Circuit Judge

Adelphia Gateway, LLC (“Adelphia”) received approval from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (the “DEP”) to build a natural gas compressor station in West Rockhill Township, Pennsylvania. This drew the ire of that town and several of its residents, who filed three separate challenges before the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board (the “Hearing Board” or “Board”) attacking the approval as unlawful. Adelphia moved to dismiss, arguing that 15 U.S.C. § 717r(d)(1) bars the Board from hearing the appeals. The Board agreed and dismissed. But, on appeal, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania reversed the dismissal, holding that the Board had jurisdiction and that hearing the challenges was not preempted by the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717 et seq. See Cole v. Pa. Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 257 A.3d 805, 821 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2021).

Adelphia then rushed to federal court and filed a complaint that, if successful, would have nullified the

3 Commonwealth Court’s decision. It sought declaratory judgments that the Board lacked jurisdiction and that its review was preempted by federal law; it also sought to enjoin the Board from hearing the challenges. The District Court dismissed Adelphia’s complaint under the issue preclusion doctrine.

Because we agree that Adelphia’s challenge impermissibly seeks to relitigate an issue decided by the Commonwealth Court, we affirm.

I. Facts

In December 2019, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission conditionally approved Adelphia’s application under § 717f(c) of the Natural Gas Act to acquire, construct, and operate an interstate natural gas pipeline system. See Adelphia Gateway, LLC, 169 FERC ¶ 61,220 (2019). As part of that project, Adelphia sought to construct a compressor station in West Rockhill Township. To do so, it applied separately to the DEP to demonstrate that the proposed station satisfied the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq., and Pennsylvania’s Air Pollution Control Act, 35 Pa. Stat. §§ 4001 et seq. The DEP found all statutory requirements met and granted Adelphia a Plan Approval in April 2019. 1 The Plan Approval provides that “[a]ny person aggrieved by this action may appeal the action to the Environmental Hearing Bo