What's happened to our society when a political group can actually say this to Congress with a straight face?
Niskanen appreciates this opportunity to bring to the Committee’s attention some specific concerns regarding two issues: (1) how poorly landowners are treated under the Natural Gas Act when pipelines seek to take their property for interstate natural gas pipelines, and (2) the need for Congress to create federal electric transmission siting authority.
So, since landowners have been treated badly by the feds under the Natural Gas Act, let's expand federal control of electric transmission line siting so that even more landowners can be treated badly by the federal government? Do they even know how hypocritical they sound?
This is what happens when your "concern" for landowners is really, deep down, just concern for your own environmental and political goals. It's not about the landowners... it never was. Groups like Niskanen use landowners like a battering ram to get their own way because they don't have any compelling supporters of their own. Landowners are mere pawns in a political game, but yet they allow it because they need the money and political power wielded by these hypocritical institutions to win their own, personal battle. So while gas pipeline opponents allow Niskanen to "represent" them, electric transmission opponents do not. Niskanen wants to toss these folks under the bus. Therefore, who is Niskanen to ask Congress to make electric transmission siting a federal affair? They need to butt out and shut up. This is not their battle.
Considering how they have not interacted with any electric transmission opposition group, it takes a lot of chutzpah for Niskanen to tell Congress that new legislation will "protect" landowners. Niskanen has NO IDEA what issues are important to landowners in electric transmission battles. Go ahead, read about all the "protections" Niskanen thinks are beneficial to you. For the most part, they are nothing more than the protections currently available under state law, and we all know how little those do to actually protect landowners. It's just another slate of "landowner protections" that are created by the folks who seek to take advantage of landowners. No landowners were consulted in their creation. It's self-serving dreck about as useful to landowners as a screen door on a submarine.
Oh, but wait... these folks have come up with a new "protection" that actually puts landowners at greater risk. See Section (j) Other Landowner Rights and Protections on page 27. Here an energy company is required to return property taken using eminent domain if the project is not in operation by the date on its certificate. Of course, an energy company need only apply for an extension if it fails to meet the drop dead date, so this provision is unlikely to ever be used. But, say it does come into play... In order to have his property returned, a landowner must REPAY the energy company up to 50% of the amount he received in the taking. That's right... those "compensation" payments cannot be used by the landowner to compensate for the damage done until AFTER a project is completed, less the landowner is given the option to purchase his property back before the project is completed. Where would a landowner get the money to buy his own property back if not from the original award? This also overlooks the fact that any part of the compensation described as "damages" is most likely taxable. The landowner would have to give a great big chunk of his award to the government up front, then bank the rest as insurance in case the project gets abandoned and he wants to buy his property back. In every instance of an abandoned electric transmission project, the transmission owner has been required to return the easement to the property owner at no cost. Why should this be changed to put landowners at a disadvantage? Landowner protections? Hardly! This is what happens when the energy project owner writes "protective" legislation for landowners.
Niskanen Center does not represent landowners in electric transmission siting situations. It does not represent us. Their shameless audacity in pretending to do so is repugnant.
This is what happens when your "concern" for landowners is really, deep down, just concern for your own environmental and political goals. It's not about the landowners... it never was. Groups like Niskanen use landowners like a battering ram to get their own way because they don't have any compelling supporters of their own. Landowners are mere pawns in a political game, but yet they allow it because they need the money and political power wielded by these hypocritical institutions to win their own, personal battle. So while gas pipeline opponents allow Niskanen to "represent" them, electric transmission opponents do not. Niskanen wants to toss these folks under the bus. Therefore, who is Niskanen to ask Congress to make electric transmission siting a federal affair? They need to butt out and shut up. This is not their battle.
Considering how they have not interacted with any electric transmission opposition group, it takes a lot of chutzpah for Niskanen to tell Congress that new legislation will "protect" landowners. Niskanen has NO IDEA what issues are important to landowners in electric transmission battles. Go ahead, read about all the "protections" Niskanen thinks are beneficial to you. For the most part, they are nothing more than the protections currently available under state law, and we all know how little those do to actually protect landowners. It's just another slate of "landowner protections" that are created by the folks who seek to take advantage of landowners. No landowners were consulted in their creation. It's self-serving dreck about as useful to landowners as a screen door on a submarine.
Oh, but wait... these folks have come up with a new "protection" that actually puts landowners at greater risk. See Section (j) Other Landowner Rights and Protections on page 27. Here an energy company is required to return property taken using eminent domain if the project is not in operation by the date on its certificate. Of course, an energy company need only apply for an extension if it fails to meet the drop dead date, so this provision is unlikely to ever be used. But, say it does come into play... In order to have his property returned, a landowner must REPAY the energy company up to 50% of the amount he received in the taking. That's right... those "compensation" payments cannot be used by the landowner to compensate for the damage done until AFTER a project is completed, less the landowner is given the option to purchase his property back before the project is completed. Where would a landowner get the money to buy his own property back if not from the original award? This also overlooks the fact that any part of the compensation described as "damages" is most likely taxable. The landowner would have to give a great big chunk of his award to the government up front, then bank the rest as insurance in case the project gets abandoned and he wants to buy his property back. In every instance of an abandoned electric transmission project, the transmission owner has been required to return the easement to the property owner at no cost. Why should this be changed to put landowners at a disadvantage? Landowner protections? Hardly! This is what happens when the energy project owner writes "protective" legislation for landowners.
Niskanen Center does not represent landowners in electric transmission siting situations. It does not represent us. Their shameless audacity in pretending to do so is repugnant.
RSS Feed