In granting the motion for rehearing and vacating its earlier opinion, the court made both stylistic and substantive changes. The unanimity in result, however, was not changed. The court emphasized that a carbon dioxide pipeline company cannot wield eminent domain power to build a private pipeline that is limited in its use to the pipeline's own assets. By imposing a "for hire" requirement for common carrier status, the Legislature was implying that the pipeline serve "a customer other than the pipeline owner itself." The court also added to a footnote a lengthy discussion of Senate Bill 18 which provided for greater protections for property owners and which Denbury Green argued reflected a legislative intent that is not supportive of the judiciary's increased role in reviewing these types of common carrier decisions.
展开▼
