home

Kelo v. Drill, Baby, Drill!

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 10:20:54 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Atrios, when Republicans like eminent domain:

Two pipeline companies are seeking the clout of eminent domain. While the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission has yet to rule, it signaled this year that it was leaning toward giving firms condemnation power to gain rights-of-way for their pipelines.

Many years ago, I penned a legal defense of the Kelo decision. Many "conservatives" claimed outrage over the decision. My defense was largely premised on the court's adherence to existing precedent that gave deference to the elected branches of government, especially, State and local government, on issues of purely local concern. The "conservatives" claimed that the "violation" of private property rights made the issue one of Constitutional concern. We'll see what they say now.

< Not Caring About Deficits | Minimal Changes Made to Detainee Provsions in NDAA >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Kelo v. Drill, Baby, Drill! | 100 comments (100 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Eminent Domain (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Dadler on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 10:59:20 AM EST
    I recall fondly the decades of deserted houses along the proposed LA 105 freeway when I was a kid.  Yes, the freeway is there now, but what of all those folks who lost their homes in the decades of ridiculousness that ensued before the highway was built?  When governments sieze the property of citizens for the "greater good," unless they pay those evicted citizens market value plus 25, at least, then it's nothing but tyranny.  The government, in the context of eminent domain, is usually acting as a defacto private entity, since no eminent domain claim can result in a development so encompassing that even a bare majority of citizens benefit from it.  The 105 does little to nothing for most of L.A. county's residents.  They could've simply built the metro line on that route, scrapped the freeway, and that would be that.  Traffic would still suck either way.  Land is static and finite, people are not.

    That said, the hypocrisy of Republicans on almost any issue is obvious and, spare the justified, outrage, quite entertaining in a perverse way.

    the 105 gets you to LAX (none / 0) (#3)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 11:22:41 AM EST
    without having to drive Century Blvd.

    Parent
    But you miss out on (none / 0) (#30)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 02:30:15 PM EST
    that LA landmark on Century Blvd--that huge, ginormous billboard.  It is perfect LA kitsch.

    Parent
    Heh--authentic Hawaii, LA style! (none / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 07:07:59 PM EST


    Parent
    The plus 25% (none / 0) (#4)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 11:27:13 AM EST
    Under California law, the landowner is entitled to relocation expenses.  There are other components of damages as well.

    If the public entity's pre-litigation offer (which is mandatory) is deemed in bad faith, the court has the discretion of awarding attorneys fees to the landowner.

    Parent

    Kelo was incorrect, imo, and if any (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 11:10:51 AM EST
    private entity or gov't wants someone else's land, they need to pay through the nose to the satisfaction of the seller.  

    My position is unchanged.  

    New London definitely lost out on Kelo.

    from 2009:

    Pfizer to Leave City That Won Land-Use Case

    How about PA's plans here? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 11:39:14 AM EST


    Parent
    um (none / 0) (#21)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 01:31:52 PM EST
    If a private entity or gov't wants someone else's land, they need to pay through the nose to the satisfaction of the seller.  
    My position is unchanged.  

    Parent
    Inaccurate. If property owner (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 05:26:25 PM EST
    refuses the condemning entitie's statutory offer, case goes to jury trial.  Jury determines FMV.  

    Parent
    In Cali? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 05:29:06 PM EST
    A jury trial is very inexpensive of course.

    Very practical approach.

    Not.

    Parent

    California Constitution. And statutes. (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 05:34:06 PM EST
    It's the battle of the experts.  

    Parent
    This is wrong (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:10:22 PM EST
    Surprising since Midkiff was a Hawaii case.

    Parent
    After our visit to Hawaii (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Zorba on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 06:58:50 PM EST
    some years ago (and it was wonderful- I love Hawaii, Donald), I started to do a little reading about the Hawaiian land laws (I haven't read the Daws book, but I probably should).  Hawaiian land laws are the most complex thing I've ever run across (and that includes Differential Equations and Quantum Mechanics in college).  ;-)

    Parent
    Great comment (none / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 07:08:21 PM EST


    Parent
    Are you contending that (none / 0) (#6)
    by me only on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 11:45:44 AM EST
    taking your home is the same as right of way?

    In right of way cases, one dedicated person can hold up an entire project.

    In some ways (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:09:42 PM EST
    this is worse.

    No just compensation.

    Parent

    So $10/foot (none / 0) (#44)
    by me only on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:34:04 PM EST
    for right of way is not just?

    Parent
    Not if you consider (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:39:08 PM EST
    the drop in the overall value of the property.

    Parent
    Unless your property (none / 0) (#52)
    by me only on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:57:11 PM EST
    has some significant external value (like a desirable location for commercial development), what is the cause in drop in overall value?

    Parent
    Residential and other properties (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 04:14:30 PM EST
    are likely to go down in value when a pipeline is placed on it.

    Parent
    That's why you negotiate a spigot. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Addison on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 04:26:44 PM EST


    Parent
    They are not placing a pipeline (none / 0) (#92)
    by me only on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 08:43:49 PM EST
    on it.  They are placing it under it.

    Does this value go down if the lines are for distribution?  When the local utility put a gas line (and sewer) in my old neighborhood nothing happened to property values.  The public utility didn't provide any compensation and did a really awful job of fixing the driveway and yard.

    This property value argument is weak sauce.  I could understand it coming from Dadler or Jeff, but you?  I have walked miles and miles of HP ammonia lines and driven hundreds of them.  Oh, the farmers know where they are, but residents (unless they were there when the lines were installed) have no idea.  I wouldn't have known where the lines were had it not been given to me.

    What route does the mixed xylene pipeline from Whiting to Decatur take?

    Parent

    As I'm sure you know (none / 0) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:58:21 PM EST
    the compensation is determined by a judicial review, presumably they factor in all the obvious factors like the effect on overall value of the property.

    Parent
    Your presumption is incorrect (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 04:13:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, don't keep us in suspense. (none / 0) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 04:52:18 PM EST
    According to expertlaw.com
    Partial Taking - If the taking is of part of a piece of property, such as the condemnation of a strip of land to expand a road, the owner should be compensated both for the value of the strip of land and for any effect the condemnation of that strip has on the value of the owner's remaining property.
    It does not specifically address compensation for easments, perhaps you can show us your source of info for your comment?

    Parent
    Understanding (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 05:28:19 PM EST
    that the reduced value in the property is difficult to prove might help.

    Think about it.

    Parent

    I think there would be an fairly large history (none / 0) (#79)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 05:39:00 PM EST
    of PU easements and their effect on property values to work from.

    Think about it.

    Parent

    BTD is correct--not a new issue. (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 05:28:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, here's a case that (none / 0) (#83)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 06:11:28 PM EST
    happens to be in PA:

    In Laureldale Cemetery Co. v. Reading Co. (1931) 303 Pa 315 which involved the taking of a portion of a cemetery plot under eminent domain proceedings, it was held that the proper measure of damages for the appropriated land was the difference in the market value of the land before and after the appropriation

    Again, this is a taking, not an easement, but it would seem logical (to me, anyway) to apply the same standards.

    I have no interest in being right on this, what the hell to do I know?, however I am interested in knowing the facts.

    Do you have a source to support your and BTD's side of the discussion?

    Parent

    I can support my comment: (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 11:34:58 PM EST
    CA jury instruction

    Parent
    Great, now I'm completely confused. (none / 0) (#104)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 12:16:28 PM EST
    Which I guess is not surprising since I'm just another anonymous intertoob yahoo.

    BTD says eminent domain compensation does not account for

    the drop in the overall value of the property
    .

    However, the very first sentances in your link seems to directly contradict BTD's claim and fully support my research that I've quoted in previous comments:

    3511. Severance Damages

    The [condemnor] has taken only a part of [property owner]'s property.
    [property owner] claims that [his/her/its] remaining property has lost value as a result of the taking.

    This loss in value is called "severance damages" and must be included in determining just compensation.

    I fully admit that sometimes I do not see what should be obvious, in fact I have others review my work all the time just for this reason (and I'm the boss!), but could you show me what I'm missing?

    Parent

    I sd. I could support my comment, which (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 12:30:21 PM EST
    I did.  Maybe BTD is wrong?  I have actually tried a condemnation case (!).  

    Parent
    Ah, I see, we had a miscommunication, thanks. (none / 0) (#106)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 01:20:29 PM EST
    btw, I read up on the SDGE proposal last night.

    Seems to me that if SDGE's grid is incurring additional costs as a result of transporting energy produced by a group customers who own solar installationsm, then those additional costs should be paid by that group of customers.

    My sense is that there are essentially no additional costs.

    Parent

    I see a huge difference (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 11:53:55 AM EST
    between condemning/seizing private property to give to a private company to, hopefully, enrich the city's tax coffers vs right of way for utilities that serve everyone.

    Having said that, the city should make the company seeking right of way go to court, not just give the ability to seize.

    The public ain't gonna own... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 12:00:37 PM EST
    these pipelines.  They may well be served buy them, but it will cost them...the pipeline co's ain't running a charity.

    Me thinks it is up to the pipeline companies to buy the land if they want it so bad, with offers even those not keen on selling can't refuse.  Free market solution. No place for emminent domain here or in Kelo...it stinks of fascism by the merger of government and corporate power definition.

    Parent

    Yup - not the same thing as right of way for (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 01:03:36 PM EST
    public utility power lines or the like. Just the best way for them to get their product to market.

    Parent
    Ding! (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:09:13 PM EST


    Parent
    The public doesn't own the telephone lines (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 05:09:56 PM EST
    or the cable TV lines or the water pipes....

    And, BIORN, there are some people who just won't sell for any price.

    So there is a place for eminent domain, it just needs to be used very cautiously.

    OTOH, seizing property because some private company wants to build a shopping center is dead wrong.

    Parent

    how do you feel about (none / 0) (#9)
    by CST on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 12:01:17 PM EST
    trains?

    Btw, I actually agree with you here on the principal.

    It's one thing to use it for infrastructure, it's another thing to use it for private development.  But I'm wondering if you would include other forms of infrastructure or just utilities?

    Parent

    Not to speak for Jim (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by me only on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 01:15:09 PM EST
    but trains (highways, airports, etc) are not the same as right of way for utilities.  Trains et al, actually take the land from the owner.  The gas line will be buried, like underground utilities (power, sewer, cable, etc).  The owner still has the land.  Now the owner can't just dig a bomb shelter where the gas line is, but you can still plant grass or astroturf over the pipeline.

    Parent
    Yup. (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 01:22:30 PM EST
    Additionally the agreements that I read committed the co's to basically repairing the disturbed ground surface to original condition, with the exception of trees with deep roots.

    Parent
    So what? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:08:55 PM EST
    It's still for private use.

    Parent
    trains, highways, etc... (none / 0) (#22)
    by CST on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 01:35:42 PM EST
    can also be buried.  They just usually aren't because of the $ involved.  Granted, it's a lot more work to do that, but in theory it could work that way.

    Parent
    Love this Civ E talk. (none / 0) (#23)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 01:37:34 PM EST


    Parent
    I gotta keep (none / 0) (#24)
    by CST on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 01:39:49 PM EST
    paying the bills...

    Parent
    Question. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Addison on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 01:46:54 PM EST
    I get the practical difference, but what is the extent of the legal distinction between seizure and use re: eminent domain?

    Parent
    Not an attorney, I can't speak for that (none / 0) (#29)
    by me only on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 02:07:57 PM EST
    What I do know is that the threat of eminent domain in cases like right of way is enough to get the party to agree to a deal.

    If someone wanted to take my house so they could build a bird sanctuary I would fight till my last breath to stop it.  If the utility company wanted to put a pipleline under my yard, I would hold out for the best possible deal.  The threat of eminent domain means that I would make a deal even if I thought is was not quite the real value.

    Parent

    He misstates the principle (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:08:18 PM EST
    I repeat again, these pipelines are not for public use, they are for private use and private profits.

    Parent
    The pipelines don't serve everyone. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:06:56 PM EST


    Parent
    Absolutely not (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:07:38 PM EST
    This is not a power line or a water main.

    This is a pipeline for use by private companies for their private profits.

    Parent

    Not all power line rights of way (none / 0) (#60)
    by BTAL on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 04:33:24 PM EST
    are for the local delivery of power nor controlled/owned by local public utilities.  Many are doing just what the pipeline does - carrying a product to the local reseller.

    Parent
    How is that a public use? (none / 0) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 07:57:31 AM EST


    Parent
    Maybe they can (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 12:35:57 PM EST
    eminent domain this...

    The Strait of Hormuz is either closed today...

    TEHRAN - MP Parviz Sorouri of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee has said that Iran plans to practice its ability to close the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most strategically important chokepoints, which accounts for about 30% of the world's seaborne oil shipments.

    "Currently, the Middle East region supplies 70 percent of the world's energy needs, (most of) which are transported through the Strait of Hormuz. We will hold an exercise to close the Strait of Hormuz in the near future. If the world wants to make the region insecure, we will make the world insecure," ISNA quoted Sorouri as saying on Tuesday.

    Or, The Strait of Hormuz is NOT closed today...

    Seeking Alpha reported,"Crude oil spikes $2 in minutes to $100.45/barrel on a report Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz "until further notice," for a military exercise."

    By 10:40 a.m. EDT oil had jumped from $98.590 before the rumor, to $101.25 at its peak, and has settled to $100.30 -- still sitting almost $2 higher than before the supposition began.

    We reported on this threat yesterday, and most experts believed the boast wasn't a credible possibility.

    Bloomberg reports the Strait is wide open and it's not yet known how the rumor originated.

    In any case, Tyler Durden at ZeroHedge has some pretty graphs up today that should have oil industry execs and other "financial expertise" laden friends of the administration creaming themselves today...

    Our stupid media... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Addison on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 12:58:29 PM EST
    It's a war game for PR purposes -- the threat was implied not actual -- but some people (read: journalists) apparently thought that war games are real in every respect, I guess? So when the United States war games against China, it's World War III.

    This coupled with paranoia and conspiracy-laden thinking (Hu Jintao made a statement about having the Chinese navy be "more prepared" for war, and some media reported this as "Chinese president tells its troops to prepare for combat" as if war was imminent) is all it takes anymore to send everyone into a tizzy.

    I just can't tell whether someone wanted people to be confused or whether the media screwed up all on their own or what. If Iran actually closed the strait (and doesn't have a nuclear weapon) that would be the end of them one way or another, so they know better. Hence the "war game".

    Parent

    Kelo. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Addison on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 01:03:47 PM EST
    Hey, as long as the courts are going to be activisty and political, I reserve the right to want them to be activisty and political in a way that I like. I'll leave defense of the pretense of objective interpretations of the law to those who get paid for that.

    dissimilar to Kelo (none / 0) (#14)
    by diogenes on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    A pipeline is an energy utility; the best parallels might be a high powered electrical transmission line or a water aquaduct from a resevoir which might not benefit the immediate neighbors but would have a public aim.
      Kelo was about a commercial project which was purely local.  
    I don't think that anyone here would dispute the use of eminent domain if a private solar energy company wanted to build a transmission line from desert solar cells to cities.  This is all about hydrofracking.

    Shush. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Addison on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 01:48:59 PM EST
    Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's not bring solar energy companies in to the eminent domain debate. The sun shines EVERYWHERE, they could seize EVERYTHING. That's a recipe for Constitutional Communism.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:06:26 PM EST
    A public utility delivers to the public.

    These pipeline deliver to the energy companies.

    Try again.

    Parent

    And without them (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 05:15:10 PM EST
    the energy companies would be out of energy pretty fast.

    Parent
    Why they should pay for them (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 05:16:26 PM EST
    without public support through eminent domain no?

    Free market and all?

    Parent

    Actually free markets (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 09:44:10 PM EST
    and utilities don't seem to go together.

    Parent
    The Constitution (none / 0) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 07:56:51 AM EST
    does not have that "distinction" enumerated.

    How do you justify it?

    Parent

    I also cannot (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 09:37:44 PM EST
    justify social security.....

    Parent
    It has long been the case that Public Utilities (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 01:04:33 PM EST
    have had the power of eminent domain, ie., they can, w/o the permission of the landowner, buy property rights from a landowner, with due compensation, for the public good.

    Raw gas is extracted from the ground by gas wells. It is then "gathered" by pipelines from the individual wells into larger pipelines which transport the gathered raw gas to refineries.

    Refined gas is then distributed by Public Utilites from the refineries to the public via more pipelines.

    The 2 companies applying for Public Utility status are, for now, gas "gatherers." Upon being granted PU status they will then be obligated to distribute refined natural gas to the public, and also operate under the much more stringent regulations that a PU is subject to.

    On the one hand I have a fundamental problem with eminent domain itself, on the other, if the applicants qualify as PUs and are granted PU status, they would then have the right to use the power of eminent domain.

    Also, I would imagine the more stringent environmental regs of a PU, vs a gatherer, would be beneficial to the public at large.

    On Sept. 17, 2010, Peregrine Keystone Gas Pipeline (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 01:16:41 PM EST
    On Sept. 17, 2010, Peregrine Keystone Gas Pipeline filed an application for approval of a non-exclusive basis to begin to offer, render, furnish, or supply natural gas gathering, compression, dehydration, and transportation or conveying service by pipeline to the public in all municipalities located in Greene and Fayette counties and in East Bethlehem Township, Washington County. The company has applied to be a public utility under the Public Utility Code, Title 66 of Pennsylvania's Consolidated Statues.


    Parent
    This is the issue (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:05:48 PM EST
    the part you choose to ignore "non-exclusive basis to begin to offer, render, furnish, or supply natural gas gathering, compression, dehydration."

    "the public" is not getting these pipelines.

    Parent

    Well, despite your silly comment that it is so, (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:26:23 PM EST
    I'm not choosing to ingnore anything.

    I assume the meaning of "non-exclusive basis to begin to offer, render, furnish, or supply natural gas gathering, compression, dehydration, and transportation or conveying service by pipeline to the public" is what it says, that the services they offer will be open to anyone, ie., the services are non-exclusive.

    Do you interpret that differently?

    Parent

    Riiiiight (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:28:16 PM EST
    Ordinary citizens will engage in "gas gathering."

    Sheesh.

    Talk about silly.

    Parent

    It would seem to me that in order to qualify (none / 0) (#45)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:35:39 PM EST
    for PU they would have to deliver gas to the public, among other things.

    Perhaps there is a plan for them to buy existing gas PUs, or build some distribution pipelines, or something, who knows.

    If they don't/will not deliver gas to the public, they should not be awarded PU status.


    Parent

    Not the issue (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:38:23 PM EST
    The "gathering" of the natural gas is the issue.

    That's private use.


    Parent

    Or are you suggesting that the definition of a PU (none / 0) (#48)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:38:37 PM EST
    is that it's business is exclusively distributing gas to the public, and no other gas services are allowed?

    Again, if so, they should not be award PU status.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:04:58 PM EST
    These pipelines are not for the delivery of natural gasto the public.

    "The 2 companies applying for Public Utility status are, for now, gas "gatherers."

    This is for gas gathering.

    Parent

    The "public" doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by me only on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:54:55 PM EST
    get power off high voltage lines either.  They are transmission lines, not distribution lines.  However, distribution cannot happen w/o transmission.

    Parent
    That's part of the transmission to the public (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 04:11:42 PM EST
    system.

    But let me be clear - I personally think "public utilities" is a joke.

    Public utilities should be state owned.

    Parent

    Actually, according to wiki, (none / 0) (#63)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 05:08:34 PM EST
    electricty generation is done by PUs and transmission and distribution is by non-PU corps...

    Parent
    I know that's not true (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 05:15:33 PM EST
    It may be true that some generation is not by PUs and some transmission is by PUs, but there is no such hard and fast rule.

    Parent
    Electric power used to be very (none / 0) (#78)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 05:34:57 PM EST
    vertically integrated from generation to consumer, lately there has been a lot of restructuring in that regard, but you're right there is no hard and fast rule these days.

    Parent
    Maybe OT, but SDGE is petitioning (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 05:39:47 PM EST
    PUC to charge customers w/solar power a rather expensive useage fee.   Says they are "taking advantage."  

    Parent
    Then the gas lines you are arguing (none / 0) (#90)
    by me only on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 08:30:54 PM EST
    against are also "part of the transmission to the public."  You can't transmit the gas to the public w/o collecting the gas.  Just like you can't get electricity to the people w/o the transmissions lines.

    The boat sailed 100 years ago on state owned public utilities unless you want to "take" those entities.  Next you are going to tell me heat and light are human rights.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 07:54:40 AM EST
    I'll buy it, so long as Kelo is accepted as right.

    There is no distinction that makes sense between the situations.

    Parent

    Heh, (none / 0) (#103)
    by me only on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 10:55:12 AM EST
    you gonna accept Plessy as right?

    Parent
    It seems that the verbiage (none / 0) (#43)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:30:08 PM EST
    says they will deliver gas to the public, though clearly not with these lines.

    Parent
    "Though clearly not with these lines" (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:37:20 PM EST
    I rest my case.

    Parent
    So I guess it boils down to whether (none / 0) (#50)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:39:51 PM EST
    a gas PU can do more than just deliver gas to the public.

    Parent
    It can (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 04:12:50 PM EST
    but the part that is not "public" is not, um, public.

    To be clear, I think this is legal, but not good policy.

    Then again, I think public utilities are generally bad policy anyway.

    Parent

    Ah, thanks for the clarity. (none / 0) (#58)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 04:25:50 PM EST
    To be clear, I think this is legal, but not good policy.


    Parent
    I recall reading the product going (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 05:31:53 PM EST
    through the pipeline will not be sold to anyone living in U.S.  It's going overseas.  

    Parent
    I read just the opposite. (none / 0) (#82)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 05:50:10 PM EST
    That the new gas production will displace the Canadian gas and other foriegn LNG (mostly from T&T and Nigeria) that we are now importing.

    Parent
    No one has a permit (none / 0) (#91)
    by me only on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 08:31:57 PM EST
    to export LNG from the US.  The terminals are import only.

    Parent
    Don't think that's accurate... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Addison on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 09:08:18 PM EST
    Are you sure about that? It was true until recently, but things have changed. While exports are fairly low at this point, a number of facilities have the necessary permits and are working to build the facilities to export LNG.

    Currently, the only US plant capable of liquefying natural gas for export as LNG is a small 1969-vintage facility in Alaska. All other US LNG terminals were built for imports, on the assumption the US would need foreign gas. Technology allowing retrieval of shale gas has reversed that assumption, and at least five terminals want to build gasification plants to enable exports.

    DOE has authorized five permits for LNG export totaling the equivalent of 6.6 billion cubic feet per day, or 10% of US daily usage, to countries with which the US has bilateral Free Trade Agreements, Smith said.

    DOE has permitted up to 2.2 billion cubic feet per day of non-FTA exports from Cheniere Energy's Sabine Pass terminal, and pending applications from other terminals would bring the total non-FTA export potential to 6.6. billion cubic feet per day, the same as authorized for FTA nation exports - totaling 20% of US consumption.

    What Will LNG Exports Cost US Consumers? November, 2011

    The days of the United States being a major energy importer are slowly waning, and it may soon be our turn to become exporters to the world. The growing production of oil from shale has dramatically cut our reliance on foreign oil, we're slowly cutting back the use of coal at the same time China's demand grow, and with a growing supply of natural gas, we may soon be a major supplier of liquefied natural gas, or LNG.

    Cheniere Energy (AMEX:LNG) and subsidiary Cheniere Energy Partners (AMEX:CQP) have signed some major LNG export deals for their Sabine Pass export terminal just a few years after thinking importing LNG was going to be the future. With demand growing in China and India, and supply growing in the U.S., we could become a major energy exporter to emerging markets.

    The US is Becoming and Energy Force. Today

    Parent

    Yes, I forgot about Alaska, but (none / 0) (#94)
    by me only on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 09:36:48 PM EST
    Sabine Pass does not have a permit to build the liquefaction plant, and won't until at least next year.

    Parent
    Texas (none / 0) (#62)
    by Addison on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 04:53:45 PM EST
    What relationship does this all have with Texas' reasonably well-delineated state laws/procedures regarding private pipeline operators' ability to condemn private land for pipeline purposes?

    http://www.bmpllp.com/files/1202248447.pdf

    If this was going to be unconstitutional (federally), wouldn't it already be unconstitutional?

    Is Pennsylvania going to look at Texas for advice on how to proceed?

    It's constitutional imo (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 05:17:06 PM EST
    But I agree with Kelo.

    What about those folks who don't?

    Parent

    I guess they don't care. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Addison on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 05:30:53 PM EST
    My feeling is that Texas gives you your answer on that pretty plainly.

    Eminent domain for pipelines has been going on in Texas for decades and decades, under the watchful eyes of conservative Democrats and Republicans (mostly the same type of people, and sometimes ACTUALLY the same people, viz. Rick Perry). It's still legal for a private operator to designate a route and condemn private land. The legislature didn't change the law and the RRC/Governor didn't change the regulations. The "SCOTEX" has elected justices which could conceivably have been demogogued out on this issue. So many different ways to change it, but it's still the law.

    So I'd say they evidently don't care about eminent domain in the context of privately-owned and operated pipelines.

    Parent

    Or... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Addison on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 05:39:28 PM EST
    Or maybe they do. This was a pipeline to and from a single private company, though, which seems to make a lot of difference to them. Not sure if that's a valid issue or just a loophole to stop this and allow most other pipeline eminent domain usage.

    The decision:

    TEXAS RICE LAND PARTNERS, LTD. AND MIKE LATTA, PETITIONERS v. DENBURY GREEN PIPELINE-TEXAS, LLC, RESPONDENT

    Parent

    Sure wish BTD would address this kind (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 05:33:02 PM EST
    of attention to "Citizens United."  

    It's funny (none / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 06:44:31 PM EST
    I'm not someone who finds Citizens United that interesting or important a case.

    Parent
    Hmmm. I decided it was correctly (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 11:27:35 PM EST
    decided, but, that decision is being cited as the cause of the demise of the Democratic Party.  

    Parent
    Not by me (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 07:53:40 AM EST


    Parent
    I'm sure it is somewhat challenging (none / 0) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 08:35:30 AM EST
    to the current status quo, or entities could once again represent the people.  NOW could stop giving jerks and idiots a free pass talking trash about women and whittling away my right of way to my uterus, and then I could send them a whole bunch of money that I can't find a candidate to send it to.

    Parent
    Kelo v. Drill, Baby, Drill! | 100 comments (100 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment