Kinder Morgan Lawsuit
Kinder Morgan Lawsuit
Kinder Morgan Lawsuit
Plaintiffs Permian Highway Pipeline, LLC (“PHP”) and Kinder Morgan Texas
Pipeline, LLC (“KMTP,” and collectively, “Plaintiffs”) file this Original Complaint for
Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief against the City of Kyle, Texas (“Defendant”), and
allege as follows:
interfere with the construction and operation of the Permian Highway Pipeline (the “Pipeline”).
Defendant first sued Plaintiffs, the Railroad Commission of Texas (the “Railroad Commission”),
and several Railroad Commission officials in a state district court in Travis County, seeking a
declaration that the Texas regulatory scheme governing gas utilities is unconstitutional and
requesting an injunction specifically enjoining the construction of the Pipeline. After losing in
that court, Defendant passed an ordinance1 (the “Ordinance”) that impermissibly imposes upon
1
A true and correct copy of Defendant’s Ordinance is attached as Exhibit A.
Case 1:19-cv-00734-RP Document 1 Filed 07/22/19 Page 2 of 22
Plaintiffs a host of safety requirements related to the construction and operation of the Pipeline
Ordinance is unconstitutional and preempted by both federal and Texas law, and a preliminary and
permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from implementing and enforcing the Ordinance.2
II. PARTIES
company that maintains its principal place of business at 1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000,
Houston, Texas 77002. PHP is the owner and economic operator of the Pipeline.
company that maintains its principal place of business at 1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000,
home-rule city pursuant to Article 11 of the Texas Constitution. Defendant is located in Hays
County and may be served by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to its mayor, clerk,
secretary, or treasurer at City Hall, 100 W. Center Street, Kyle, Texas 78640.
because this is a civil action “arising under the . . . laws . . . of the United States” and Plaintiffs are
2
Pursuant to section 37.006(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, the Attorney
General of Texas is being served with a copy of this Complaint. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
ANN. § 37.006(b) (“In any proceeding that involves the validity of a municipal ordinance or
franchise, the municipality must be made a party and is entitled to be heard, and if the statute,
ordinance, or franchise is alleged to be unconstitutional, the attorney general of the state must also
be served with a copy of the proceeding and is entitled to be heard.”).
2
Case 1:19-cv-00734-RP Document 1 Filed 07/22/19 Page 3 of 22
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief based on a federal statute—i.e., the Pipeline Safety Act,
49 U.S.C. §§ 60101 et seq. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367
because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district and all or a substantial part of
8. The Permian Basin is the most active and productive oil and gas field in the
United States. It currently supplies a large amount of the oil and gas for the entire United States.
Production in the Permian Basin has reached historic levels, and experts project it will increase for
shortage of oil and natural gas pipeline capacity out of the Permian Basin. In the Permian Basin,
most natural gas is produced in conjunction with, and from the same wells as, the production of
oil. In that productive area, approximately 400 million cubic feet of gas is stranded every day.
That gas is produced along with the oil. Some of the gas is burned off (flared) for lack of pipeline
capacity, emitting carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. Some of it is never produced
in the first place, which prevents the associated oil from being produced at all. In either event, the
lack of pipeline capacity harms the Texas economy and keeps the nation more dependent upon
10. The Pipeline, which is expected to be in service by late 2020, will help solve
the takeaway capacity problem in the Permian Basin and boost the Texas economy. The Pipeline
is a forty-two-inch buried natural gas pipeline designed to transport up to 2.1 billion cubic feet per
3
Case 1:19-cv-00734-RP Document 1 Filed 07/22/19 Page 4 of 22
day of natural gas through approximately 430 miles of pipeline from the Waha Hub in Reeves
County, Texas to the Katy Hub near Houston. Upon completion, the Pipeline will cross sixteen
Texas counties,3 providing an outlet for the Permian Basin’s increased natural gas production,
facilitating associated oil production, and reducing flaring. At the Katy Hub, and at various points
along its route, the Pipeline will connect to other new and existing pipeline systems serving the
11. The Pipeline is subject to a myriad of federal and Texas laws and related
regulations that apply to, among other issues, underground oil and gas activities as well as the
safety of pipeline construction and operations. Those laws and regulations expressly preempt local
laws and regulations that purport to do the same, especially those directed at the safety of pipeline
12. The Pipeline Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 60101 et seq. (the “PSA”), was
enacted in 1994 to “provide adequate protection against risks to life and property posed by pipeline
transportation and pipeline facilities by improving the regulatory and enforcement authority of the
Secretary of Transportation.” 49 U.S.C. § 60102(a)(1). The PSA was the combination and
recodification of two then-existing pipeline safety statutes without substantive changes—i.e., the
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 (“NGPSA”) and the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety
3
Attached as Exhibit B is a map of the Pipeline’s route.
4
Case 1:19-cv-00734-RP Document 1 Filed 07/22/19 Page 5 of 22
prescribe minimum safety standards for pipeline transportation that apply to owners and operators
of pipelines and may apply to the design, installation, inspection, emergency plans and procedures,
§ 60102(a)(2).
14. The applicable PSA regulations include, but are not limited to, those
regulations found at 49 C.F.R. Parts 190, 191, and 192. These regulations are titled “Pipeline
Safety Programs and Rulemaking Procedures” (Part 190), “Transportation of Natural and Other
Gas by Pipeline; Annual Reports, Incident Reports, and Safety–Related Condition Reports” (Part
191), and “Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety
15. The PSA creates a broad federal regulatory umbrella that allows the
Secretary to prescribe safety standards for virtually every aspect touching on the pipeline
transportation of natural gas within the United States. The breadth and depth of the PSA itself
demonstrates the intent of Congress to preempt the field with respect to safety of any pipeline or
16. In addition to occupying the field, the PSA also expressly preempts
municipal regulation of pipeline safety in Texas. The federal preemption applies to both interstate
The PSA contains an express preemption provision that prohibits state authorities
from adopting or enforcing safety standards for interstate pipeline facilities or
interstate pipeline transportation. It also prohibits state authorities from adopting
or enforcing safety standards for intrastate pipeline facilities and intrastate pipeline
transportation unless the state authority is either certified by [the Secretary] or has
an agreement with [the Secretary].
5
Case 1:19-cv-00734-RP Document 1 Filed 07/22/19 Page 6 of 22
Tex. Midstream Gas Servs., L.L.C. v. City of Grand Prairie, No. CIV.A.3:08CV1724-D, 2008 WL
5000038, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2008) (citing 49 U.S.C. §§ 60104(c), 60106(a)), aff’d sub
nom., 608 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 2010). Courts have long held that the PSA “preempts the entire
domain of pipeline safety.” Id. at 8; see also Kinley Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 999 F.2d 354, 358
(8th Cir. 1993) (recognizing that, under HLPSA, “Congress has expressly stated its intent to
preempt the states from regulating in the area of safety.”); Nat. Gas Pipeline Co. of America v.
R.R. Comm’n of Texas, 679 F.2d 51, 53–54 (5th Cir. 1982) (same proposition under NGPSA).
17. The Texas Legislature has delegated to the Railroad Commission the
authority to seek certification under the PSA to regulate intrastate pipeline safety in Texas. TEX.
UTIL. CODE ANN. § 121.201(a)(6)–(8). That delegation is exclusive. Id. § 121.201(b)(2). The
Railroad Commission has sought and obtained such certification. U.S. Dept. of Transportation,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Guidelines for States Participating in
18. Texas law grants the Railroad Commission the power to regulate pipeline
safety to the fullest degree possible in accordance with the PSA. TEX. UTIL. CODE ANN.
§ 121.201(b)(1), (2). As the certified state authority, the Railroad Commission has adopted safety
regulations that mirror and build upon the PSA’s regulations. See 16 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 8.1(b)
(adopting by reference federal minimum safety standards). For example, all pipelines “operating
wholly or partially within” Texas must “have on file with the [Railroad Commission] an approved
organization report (Form P-5) and financial security as required by Texas Natural Resources
Code[.]” Id. § 8.51(a). The Railroad Commission also has promulgated specific requirements for
6
Case 1:19-cv-00734-RP Document 1 Filed 07/22/19 Page 7 of 22
natural gas pipelines, including “Written Procedure for Handling Natural Gas Leak Complaints”
and a “Mandatory Removal and Replacement Program.” Id. §§ 8.201, et seq., 8.205, 8.208.
PSA from adopting or enforcing any ordinance that establishes a safety standard or practice
relating to pipeline transportation. Defendant is not authorized to seek certification under the PSA,
see Tex. Midstream I, 2008 WL 5000038, at *5 n.5 (recognizing Texas law “prohibits
municipalities from regulating the safety of pipeline facilities”) (citing TEX. UTIL. CODE ANN.
§ 121.202(a)), and Defendant is in fact not so certified. Guidelines, Appendix F. Moreover, while
the Texas Legislature has exercised its right under the PSA to delegate the State’s pipeline safety
regulation to the Railroad Commission, it has also exercised its rights under the PSA to expressly
preempt such regulation by local authorities. TEX. UTIL. CODE ANN. § 121.202(a) (“A
municipality or a county may not adopt or enforce an ordinance that establishes a safety standard
or practice applicable to a facility that is regulated under this subchapter, another state law, or a
federal law.”).
20. The Texas Legislature can preempt local regulation. “While home-rule
cities have all power not denied by the Constitution or state law, and thus need not look to the
Legislature for grants of authority, the Legislature can limit or withdraw that power by general
of local regulations is the Legislature’s prerogative. The question is not whether the Legislature
can preempt a local regulation . . . but whether it has.” City of Laredo v. Laredo Merchants Ass’n,
7
Case 1:19-cv-00734-RP Document 1 Filed 07/22/19 Page 8 of 22
21. The Texas Constitution mandates that no city ordinance “shall contain any
provision inconsistent with the Constitution of the State, or of the general laws enacted by the
Legislature of this State.” TEX. CONST. ART. XI, § 5(a). “Therefore, a home-rule city’s ordinance
is unenforceable to the extent that it is inconsistent with the state statute preempting that particular
subject matter.” BCCA Appeal Grp., Inc. v. City of Houston, 496 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex. 2016). The
expressed its preemptive intent through clear and unmistakable language.” Id. at 8.
22. In the Texas Utilities Code, the Texas Legislature provided that the Railroad
Commission shall “establish fair and equitable rules for the full control and supervision of the
pipelines subject to this chapter and all of their holdings pertaining to the gas business in all of
their relations to the public, as the railroad commission determines to be proper.” TEX. UTIL. CODE
ANN. § 121.151(2).
23. Furthermore, the Texas Legislature provided that the Railroad Commission
shall “prescribe and enforce rules for the government and control of pipelines subject to this
chapter in respect to their pipelines and producing, receiving, transporting, and distributing
24. Additionally, the Texas Legislature provided that the Railroad Commission
“prescribe or adopt safety standards for the transportation of gas and for gas pipeline facilities,”
and “by rule take any other requisite action in accordance with [the PSA] and its subsequent
25. This power “applies to the transportation of gas and gas pipeline facilities
in this state to the maximum degree permissible under [the PSA]” and “is granted to provide
exclusive state control over safety standards and practices applicable to the transportation of gas
8
Case 1:19-cv-00734-RP Document 1 Filed 07/22/19 Page 9 of 22
and gas pipeline facilities within the borders of this state to the maximum degree permissible under
that law.” Id. § 121.201(b)(1), (2). In other words, anything not reserved by federal law to federal
26. The Texas Legislature also prescribed that the Railroad Commission “shall
adopt rules regarding: (1) public education and awareness relating to gas pipeline facilities; and
(2) community liaison for responding to an emergency relating to a gas pipeline facility.” Id.
§ 121.2015(1), (2).
27. To add further clarity, the Texas Legislature provided that cities and
counties do not have the power to regulate the safety of gas utilities and gas pipeline facilities: “A
municipality or a county may not adopt or enforce an ordinance that establishes a safety standard
or practice applicable to a facility that is regulated under [the PSA].” Id. § 121.202 (a).
regulation of gas pipeline safety have been established for decades. More recently, the Texas
Legislature passed yet another statute, codified in the Texas Natural Resources Code,
unmistakably conferring upon the State “exclusive jurisdiction” over “oil and gas operations,”
(b) An oil and gas operation is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of this state.
Except as provided by Subsection (c), a municipality or other political subdivision
may not enact or enforce an ordinance or other measure, or an amendment or
revision of an ordinance or other measure, that bans, limits, or otherwise regulates
an oil and gas operation within the boundaries or extraterritorial jurisdiction of the
municipality or political subdivision.
(1) regulates only aboveground activity related to an oil and gas operation
that occurs at or above the surface of the ground, including a regulation
governing fire and emergency response, traffic, lights, or noise, or imposing
notice or reasonable setback requirements;
9
Case 1:19-cv-00734-RP Document 1 Filed 07/22/19 Page 10 of 22
(3) does not effectively prohibit an oil and gas operation conducted by a
reasonably prudent operator; and
TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. § 81.0523(a)(2), (b), (c) (emphases added).
29. Plaintiffs are each a “gas utility” as defined in section 121.001 of the Texas
Utilities Code, and are therefore subject to the applicable provisions in the Texas Utilities Code.
Plaintiffs also own or operate the Pipeline and are therefore subject to Railroad Commission
jurisdiction under the Texas Natural Resources Code. See TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN.
§ 81.051(a)(3), (b).
30. Thus, the Ordinance, which purports to regulate the safety of pipeline
construction, operations, and other activities, is preempted and violates the Texas Constitution,
Texas Utilities Code, and Texas Natural Resources Code, in addition to violating federal law,
32. Section 4.03, for example, provides Defendant’s council “shall have the
power to ordain, alter, amend or repeal and enforce ordinances, resolutions, rules, orders, and
regulations, for any public purpose, that are not in conflict with this charter, or federal or state
33. Moreover, one of the enumerated powers and duties of Defendant’s council
is the power and duty “[t]o govern the affairs of the city in conformance with this charter and the
state and federal constitutions and laws[.]” Id. § 4.03(r). For the avoidance of doubt, the Code
10
Case 1:19-cv-00734-RP Document 1 Filed 07/22/19 Page 11 of 22
separately provides: “No ordinance or other action of the council may be inconsistent with this
charter or in conflict with any applicable state or federal law.” Id. § 4.06(a).
34. Despite these recognitions, Defendant passed the Ordinance that runs
rough-shod over federal and Texas law, ignores the regulatory schemes that have been in place for
C. Facing inevitable preemption at every turn, Defendant sets out to halt the
construction of the Pipeline in court and then on its own.
scheme for intrastate natural gas pipelines in state district court in Travis County and sought an
36. On April 22, 2019, Defendant and others sued Plaintiffs, the Railroad
Commission, and several Railroad Commission officials in a state district court in Travis County,
seeking a declaration that the Texas regulatory scheme governing gas utilities is unconstitutional
and requesting an injunction specifically enjoining the construction of the Pipeline. The case was
assigned to the Honorable Lora J. Livingston, Cause No. D-1-GN-19-002161, and Judge
Livingston held an evidentiary hearing on May 28 and 29, 2019. On June 25, 2019, Judge
Livingston issued a letter ruling.4 On July 5, 2019, Judge Livingston entered a Final Judgment
that dismissed the Railroad Commission with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, rendered judgment
for PHP and KMTP, and denied the request for a temporary injunction as moot.5
37. During the litigation in Travis County, Defendant was working on the
Ordinance to impermissibly interfere with the Pipeline if its lawsuit was unsuccessful. At a special
4
A true and correct copy of Judge Livingston’s letter ruling is attached as Exhibit C.
5
A true and correct copy of Judge Livingston’s Final Judgment is attached as Exhibit D.
11
Case 1:19-cv-00734-RP Document 1 Filed 07/22/19 Page 12 of 22
meeting on May 14, 2019, Defendant’s City Council passed the Ordinance on first reading.6 At a
regular meeting on July 2, 2019, after losing in the Travis County state district court, Defendant’s
City Council gave final approval to the Ordinance on second reading.7 Notably, the Ordinance
declares that its purpose is “risk reduction” and subjects the Pipeline to multiple safety
39. The PSA, Texas Utilities Code, and Texas Natural Resources Code preempt
all of the sections of the Ordinance that purport to regulate pipeline safety, including, but not
limited to, the following sections of the Ordinance: 8-250(2), (3), (5), (6), (8), (10)–(13); 8-
40. The Texas Natural Resources Code further preempts all of the sections of
the Ordinance that purport to regulate oil and gas operations belowground. See TEX. NAT. RES.
CODE ANN. § 81.0523(b), (c)(1). Sections 8-250(6) and 8-253(4) of the Ordinance, for example,
generally require a minimum depth belowground of 10 feet for pipelines, and in public rights-of-
way impose an even more onerous depth requirement of no less than 13 feet.
6
True and correct copies of excerpts of the agendas for the May 14 and July 2 meetings of
Defendant’s City Council are attached as Exhibits E and F, respectively. Complete copies of the
agendas are available on Defendant’s website. See https://www.cityofkyle.com/council/agenda-
packets. Exhibit F shows the Ordinance passed first reading by a 4-0 vote.
7
The Ordinance passed second reading by a 7-0 vote. See
https://kyle.novusagenda.com/agendapublic/VODPreview.aspx?meetingVideoID=6b8502c7-
7198-4b18-8efd-a0214228b290&index=17179 (last visited July 22, 2019).
12
Case 1:19-cv-00734-RP Document 1 Filed 07/22/19 Page 13 of 22
41. The Texas Natural Resources Code and Texas Utilities Code also preempt
the financial requirements in Section 8-260 and the enforcement provisions in Section 8-261.8
Federal and Texas law already regulate both of these areas. See, e.g., TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN.
§ 91.109 (Financial Security for Persons Involved in Activities Other Than Operation of Wells);
TEX. UTIL. CODE ANN. §§ 15.021, et seq. (enforcement process and penalties applicable to all
utilities), §§ 121.301, et seq. (enforcement remedies applicable to gas utilities), §§ 121.401, et seq.
V. CAUSES OF ACTION
concerning the legal validity of Defendant’s Ordinance and the extent to which it is preempted by
federal and Texas law. The fact that Plaintiffs face the threat of irreparable harm from enforcement
of local regulations preempted by federal and Texas law satisfies the “actual controversy”
requirement. Moreover, as set forth above, there is a substantial controversy between the parties
having adverse legal interests, which is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance
of a declaratory judgment.
8
Section 253-9 of Defendant’s Ordinance sets forth various fees for pipelines. For any
charges levied on pipelines by local governments, the Gas Utility Regulatory Act, TEX. UTIL. CODE
ANN. §§ 101.001, et seq., provides in relevant part: “The railroad commission has exclusive
appellate jurisdiction to review an order or ordinance of a municipality exercising exclusive
original jurisdiction as provided by this subtitle.” TEX. UTIL. CODE ANN. § 102.001(b). Plaintiffs
hereby object to the fees in Section 253-9 and reserve their rights to challenge those fees at the
Railroad Commission.
13
Case 1:19-cv-00734-RP Document 1 Filed 07/22/19 Page 14 of 22
44. Based on the foregoing, a declaratory judgment is both necessary and proper
to set forth and determine the extent to which Defendant’s Ordinance is preempted by federal and
Texas law. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Plaintiffs therefore request a declaratory judgment that:
45. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57, Plaintiffs request a “speedy
concerning whether Defendant’s Ordinance violates the Commerce Clause of the United States
Constitution. U.S. CONST. ART. I, § 8. The Commerce Clause bars states and their subdivisions
from unjustifiably discriminating against or burdening the flow of goods, including natural gas.
Here, the Ordinance invades the province of the federal government by attempting to regulate
pipelines despite an extensive federal regulatory scheme reserving such authority over both
interstate and intrastate pipelines to federal regulators and properly designated state regulators (in
this case the Railroad Commission). The Pipeline will run through 16 counties and numerous
municipalities. Each county and municipality cannot pass its own pipeline construction, operation,
and safety regulations, thereby subjecting the Pipeline and other pipelines to a patchwork of local
regulations throughout the state that will unduly impede and disrupt interstate commerce. For
14
Case 1:19-cv-00734-RP Document 1 Filed 07/22/19 Page 15 of 22
48. Based on the foregoing, a declaratory judgment is both necessary and proper
to set forth and determine the extent to which Defendant’s Ordinance violates the Commerce
Clause. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Plaintiffs therefore request a declaratory judgment that:
49. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57, Plaintiffs request a “speedy
concerning the extent to which Defendant’s Ordinance violates the Texas Constitution. The Texas
Constitution mandates that no city ordinance “shall contain any provision inconsistent with the
Constitution of the State, or of the general laws enacted by the Legislature of this State.” TEX.
CONST. ART. XI, § 5(a). As set forth above, Defendant’s Ordinance violates the Texas Constitution
52. Based on the foregoing, a declaratory judgment is both necessary and proper
to set forth and determine the extent to which Defendant’s Ordinance violates the Texas
that:
15
Case 1:19-cv-00734-RP Document 1 Filed 07/22/19 Page 16 of 22
53. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57, Plaintiffs request a “speedy
55. Plaintiffs request that the Court issue a preliminary and permanent
available under 28 U.S.C. § 2202 in order to effectuate the Court’s declaratory relief, and such
56. For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of
success on the merits of their claims. Because the Ordinance is expressly preempted by federal
and Texas law, Plaintiffs need not satisfy the remaining requirements for injunctive relief and are
57. Alternatively, although not required to do so, Plaintiffs can satisfy the
58. Plaintiffs will likely suffer imminent and irreparable injury if Defendant is
not restrained from implementing and enforcing the Ordinance while this litigation is pending.
Without a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs face criminal liability and daily fines for alleged
violations of the Ordinance. There is no adequate remedy at law because Plaintiffs will either have
16
Case 1:19-cv-00734-RP Document 1 Filed 07/22/19 Page 17 of 22
fined until the Court determines the extent to which the Ordinance is unconstitutional, preempted,
or both.
59. The harms faced by Plaintiffs outweigh any harm that would be sustained
by Defendant if the preliminary injunction were granted. Temporarily postponing the effect of the
Ordinance poses no risk to Defendant. The only thing Defendant will have lost is the opportunity
to prosecute and assess charges for violations of the Ordinance. Moreover, there is no
countervailing injury to Defendant because it is already obligated under the U.S. Constitution and
60. Issuance of a preliminary injunction would not adversely affect the public
interest. To the contrary, a preliminary injunction will serve the public interest. As noted above,
there is a pipeline capacity crisis in Texas and any delay in constructing the Pipeline will result in
the waste of natural resources, pollution, and other adverse consequences for energy consumers in
61. For all these reasons, and those set forth in Plaintiffs’ Application for
Preliminary Injunction, which is being filed contemporaneously with this Complaint, Plaintiffs
request that the Court set their application for hearing and issue a preliminary injunction
Constitution and laws of the United States, and Defendant’s conduct is thus actionable under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, for which attorneys’ fees may be awarded pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
64. Plaintiffs seek an award of their reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees in
17
Case 1:19-cv-00734-RP Document 1 Filed 07/22/19 Page 18 of 22
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs request that Defendant be cited to appear and
18
Case 1:19-cv-00734-RP Document 1 Filed 07/22/19 Page 19 of 22
f. Award Plaintiffs all other relief, in law and in equity, to which they may be
justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas R. Phillips
State Bar No. 00000022
Gavin R. Villareal
State Bar No. 24008211
98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1500
Austin, Texas 78701
512.322.2500
512.322.2501 (facsimile)
[email protected]
[email protected]
19
Case 1:19-cv-00734-RP Document 1 Filed 07/22/19 Page 20 of 22
Plaintiffs,
Defendant.
STATE OF TEXAS
HARRIS COUNTY
VERIFICATION
Before me, the undersigned notary, on this day personally appeared Kevin
Mosley, the affiant, a person whose identity is known to me. After I administered an oath,
affiant testified as follows:
Kevin Mosley
11, /9/
ii lief 30 / 2°.2\v ‘`.4%
• ;I% to- -
Case 1:19-cv-00734-RP Document 1 Filed 07/22/19 Page 21 of 22
P/aintiffs,
Defendant.
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF HARRIS
Before me, the undersigned notary, on this day personally appeared Bill Kroger,
the affiant, a person whose identity is known to me. After I administered an oath, the affiant
testified as follows:
and am competent to make this affidavit. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein,
2. I am a partner at the law firm Baker Botts L.L.P. and counsel for Plaintiffs
Permian Highway Pipeline, LLC and Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline, LLC (collectively,
"Plaintiffs") in the above-captioned action and also counsel for Plaintiffs in Cause No. D-1-GN-
19-002161; Sansom, et al., v. Texas Railroad Commission, et al.; in the 261st Judicial District of
Travis County, Texas (the "Travis County Action"). I have been licensed to practice law in the
41344616
Case 1:19-cv-00734-RP Document 1 Filed 07/22/19 Page 22 of 22
3. Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Ordinance of the City of Kyle,
Texas, as attached to the agenda for the July 2, 2019 meeting of the Kyle City Council and
4. Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the letter ruling issued on June 25,
July 5, 2019 by the Honorable Lora J. Livingston in the Travis County Action.
6. Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the agenda for the
7. Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the agenda for the
Bill Kroger
Notary Public
YVONNE I. RAGER
ti
I
ID* 1528797
NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF TEXAS
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES \
k
i tOF
MAY 17, 2023
1100:0"..C.Corre..40".•Zel ..0.0CordoCore"....e.OW