O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 22-3-82 (2019)

General certificate and permitting requirements

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A petroleum pipeline company shall not exercise the power of eminent domain granted in Code Section 22-3-81 for the purpose of constructing a new petroleum pipeline or for an extension unless and until a certificate of public convenience and necessity is issued by the commissioner of transportation as provided in Code Section 22-3-83 and a permit is issued by the director of the Environmental Protection Division of the Department of Natural Resources as provided in Chapter 17 of Title 12.

(b) No certificate of public convenience and necessity or permit as provided in Code Section 22-3-83 shall be required of a petroleum pipeline company that is:

(1) Not exercising the power of eminent domain to acquire property; or

(2) Exercising the power of eminent domain for the purpose of maintenance or expansion.

History

Code 1981, § 22-3-82, enacted by Ga. L. 2017, p. 744, § 2/HB 413.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2016–2016 · leading case: Jones v. Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC, 784 S.E.2d 865 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jones v. Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC, 784 S.E.2d 865 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 22-3-81 (2) (defining “pipeline company” as one which transports petroleum and petroleum products); OCGA § 22-3-82 (c) (pipeline company has right of reasonable access for surveying after obtaining certificate ofconvenience and necessity); and OCGA § 22-3-83 (a)…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.