A Huntingdon County court order two years ago permitting Sunoco to condemn land for the construction of the Mariner East pipeline will not be reviewed further by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, according to an order filed Tuesday.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to grant further appeal will allow a May 2017 decision upholding Sunoco’s right to eminent domain for the pipeline to stand.

In a 2-1 decision last year, the Commonwealth Court affirmed a decision by Huntingdon County Judge George Zanic, issued in January 2016, that allowed the company to have a permanent easement of 1.44 acres within the 27-acre property owned by Stephen and Ellen S. Gerhart to accommodate the pipeline.

The issue involves the construction of the Mariner East 2 pipeline to carry natural gas liquids such as propane, ethane and butane.

According to the May decision by the Commonwealth Court, the initial phase of the Mariner East pipeline, Mariner East 1, was designed to transport natural gas to the Marcus Hook Industrial Complex in Delaware County.

As Mariner East 1 was coming to fruition, Sunoco “experienced a significant increase in demand for intrastate shipments of propane driven by customer demand,” the Commonwealth Court reported. This was due to “harsh winter conditions” in 2013-14.

That’s when Sunoco proposed another, 300-mile parallel pipeline through Pennsylvania, beginning in Washington County and extending east.

The Gerharts’ Hunting­don County property, located along Trough Creek Valley Pike, Union Township, was slated to be in the pipeline’s route, but the Gerharts joined other property owners in several counties to oppose the construction, contending the pipeline was not in the public interest.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court this week refused to hear appeals involving property owners in Huntingdon, Delaware, Cumberland and Lebanon counties. Ellen Gerhart said Wednesday the Supreme Court decision brings to an end the eminent domain issue, but she said there are still permit challenges before the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board.

Expert testimony is to be concluded in that case by Feb. 12 with a hearing date slated for April 18, she

said.

Gerhart also has filed a civil rights action against Sunoco’s parent company, Energy Transfer Partners, contending she and others have experienced ongoing harassment from pipeline groups.

In a September news release, Gerhart said, “I shouldn’t have to walk around with a target on my back simply because I love my family, care about the environment and choose to exercise my rights.”

The civil rights case is still in discovery with no set trial date, she said.

Although the eminent domain question has been settled, the project has continued to stir controversy.

Last June, a protest to the pipeline was held on the steps of the Blair County Courthouse, and Zanic ordered protesters removed from the Gerhart property that same month.

The pipeline has not yet been constructed through her Huntingdon County property, Gerhart said.

In their lawsuit opposing the pipeline, the Gerharts contend the Mariner East 2 pipeline was not in the public interest, but the Commonwealth Court panel pointed out that the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission “found in several orders that Sunoco’s proposed Mariner East 1 and 2 would result in public benefits and that it was necessary and proper for the public convenience.”

Sunoco, because it was transporting natural gas within Pennsylvania, was declared a public utility and as such had the right to exercise eminent domain “conferred on them by the commonwealth in furtherance of the overall public good,” the Commonwealth Court decision held.

The Commonwealth Court also ruled that the state’s Eminent Domain Code does not permit a county court judge to overturn PUC decisions granting the right of eminent domain to a public utility.

Zanic, in his opinion stated, “This court took judicial notice that Sunoco is a public utility.”

Commonwealth Court Judges Renee Cohn Jubelirer and Anne E. Covey upheld Zanic’s decision while Judge Joseph M. Cosgrove filed a dissenting opinion noting that the majority opinion deeming Sunoco a public utility and therefore “beyond our review,” should have

been explored in greater detail.