When is hypocrisy not hypocrisy? When it enables corporate profit and political goals!
The divide between using eminent domain for gas and oil pipelines and using it for renewable energy transmission lines is becoming an issue. For years, environmental groups have raged against eminent domain to acquire right of way for fossil fuel projects. However, they are being advised to think differently when it comes to electric transmission "for renewables." For some reason, this use of eminent domain is okay. Can we just admit that it never was about eminent domain in the first place? It's about politics, and these politics are riddled with hypocrisy.
This article just goes too far. Written by a law firm scrounging for clients who want to re-write eminent domain law, it proposes to change the definition of "public use." Cue the Supreme Courts...
The 5th Amendment of the Constitution reads:
The divide between using eminent domain for gas and oil pipelines and using it for renewable energy transmission lines is becoming an issue. For years, environmental groups have raged against eminent domain to acquire right of way for fossil fuel projects. However, they are being advised to think differently when it comes to electric transmission "for renewables." For some reason, this use of eminent domain is okay. Can we just admit that it never was about eminent domain in the first place? It's about politics, and these politics are riddled with hypocrisy.
This article just goes too far. Written by a law firm scrounging for clients who want to re-write eminent domain law, it proposes to change the definition of "public use." Cue the Supreme Courts...
The 5th Amendment of the Constitution reads:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Each state has its own version of this. What is "public use?" Your personal definition of it may differ, but we can all probably agree what it is not... it's not the confiscation of private property by others seeking to make a profit using it for their own purposes. I cannot force my neighbor to sell me the use of his backyard so that I can plant a vegetable garden that will enable me to open a booth at the local farmer's market and make a profit selling produce. So why should we allow a for-profit corporation to acquire my property to build a transmission line from which they will realize profit? We did this in the past because the transmission line enabled others to have electricity. The public was getting a benefit from having electricity. We use it still when it enables the public to realize a benefit. When a transmission line is needed for reliability, for instance. However, we need to draw the line at using eminent domain to build transmission that may lower prices for a small segment of the population at the expense of another. We need to draw the line at using eminent domain to build transmission for political reasons. We need to draw the line at using eminent domain to build unneeded transmission designed for corporate profit.
This law firm proposes:
This law firm proposes:
Soon enough, eminent domain policies will have to evolve to align with renewable energy policies in order for a complete overhaul of the grid system to be attainable. State and federal lawmakers will eventually have to address the issue by having to revise the definition of “public use” to account for transmission lines transporting renewable electricity.
We're going to have to re-define "public use" to suit your political goals and corporate profit?
NO!
The last time the definition of "public use" arose was in the context of a high profile Supreme Court case, Kelo v. City of New London. In that case, the Court narrowly decided that economic development (increasing the tax base) was a "public use." The backlash was enormous. Many states enacted new laws to thwart this ridiculous decision. Any corporation can increase the tax base by turning residential property into commercial property, but are the tax benefits to the community a "public use?"
The same goes for taking private property to enable new generation choices. Everyone who wants electricity has electricity. Where's the public need? It's nothing but politics, folks.
And here's something to consider that you may find surprising. The liberal justices were the ones who supported eminent domain for economic development purposes. Conservative justices dissented. How might a new battle be decided? And just how long might that take? It would be much, much longer than renewable energy companies are willing to wait.
Can they quietly change the definition of "public use" written in the Constitution and in individual state law? And if they did, how could they still use it to oppose eminent domain for fossil fuel use, but enable electric transmission "for renewables"? The hypocrisy here is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
NO!
The last time the definition of "public use" arose was in the context of a high profile Supreme Court case, Kelo v. City of New London. In that case, the Court narrowly decided that economic development (increasing the tax base) was a "public use." The backlash was enormous. Many states enacted new laws to thwart this ridiculous decision. Any corporation can increase the tax base by turning residential property into commercial property, but are the tax benefits to the community a "public use?"
The same goes for taking private property to enable new generation choices. Everyone who wants electricity has electricity. Where's the public need? It's nothing but politics, folks.
And here's something to consider that you may find surprising. The liberal justices were the ones who supported eminent domain for economic development purposes. Conservative justices dissented. How might a new battle be decided? And just how long might that take? It would be much, much longer than renewable energy companies are willing to wait.
Can they quietly change the definition of "public use" written in the Constitution and in individual state law? And if they did, how could they still use it to oppose eminent domain for fossil fuel use, but enable electric transmission "for renewables"? The hypocrisy here is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
RSS Feed