National Eminent Domain Blog : Eminent Domain Lawyer & Attorney : Ackerman Ackerman & Dynkowski : Michigan and Washington, DC

Enid News

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Two judges in northwestern Oklahoma have ruled for Oklahoma Gas and Electric in its attempts to gain private property through condemnation so it can build a high-voltage oltage transmission line.

OG&E wants to build a 112-mile-long, 345-kilovolt transmission line to carry electricity from wind farms near Woodward to Oklahoma City.

Landowners argued OG&E would use the lines for private purposes because it wanted to sell much of the electricity out of state.

But judges in Blaine and Dewey County ruled Monday in separate cases that OG&E has shown its customers in Oklahoma would also benefit and the condemnation should be allowed…

Some landowners have said they fear the line will devalue their properties, obstruct their views, create dangers for crop dusters, damage global-positioning systems on expensive farming equipment and create health risks for landowners who have pacemakers.

For the most part, the propriety of the routing is to be determined at the administrative hearing level. The hearing will be at the Federal (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) or state public service (utility) commission.

In the best of circumstances, the chance of a successful challenge at the trial court level is minuscule.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Harvard Law Record

President Barack Obama '91's plans for energy and climate-change policy could alter the balance of power between the federal and state governments, according to Adam White '04, an Associate at Baker Botts LLP who specialized in energy litigation.

White spoke on Monday, April 20 at an event co-sponsored by the Harvard Federalist Society and the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

White, who clerked for Judge David Sentelle of the D.C. Circuit after his graduation from HLS, described his job- litigating constitutional and regulatory issues specific to the energy industry, particularly at the appellate level-as "the most interesting job in energy law."

According to White, pursuing President Obama's goals for energy and climate-change reform will require making choices about the allocation of power between the federal and state governments, creating tension that White described as having been "strangely overlooked."

Because energy infrastructure often crosses state lines, the federal government may seek to pre-empt state regulations. Most statutes, however, give the states "out-and-out vetoes" over federal projects, White said.

This can create a set of complex interactions that White referred to as "the Adam White full-employment plan." "When Congress thinks its making things easy, it usually isn't making things easy," White said. "Congress needs to make clear what they are doing with state and federal power."

Realistically, there are two conflicts at hand with the proposed power line expansion. First, is the potential for conflict between federal and state decision making processes. The second conflict arises out of the fact the utility companies are for profit entities all the while using the cloak of 'public use' to condemn private property. This problem is exacerbated by a complete lack of state utility public service commission restraint and review.      

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Farmington Independent

For months, area electric utility companies Great River Energy, Xcel Energy, along with nine others from the Dakotas to Wisconsin, have held public meetings to explain a proposed power line expansion project called CapX2020.

But a group here in Dakota County is not buying into it. In fact, the Citizens Energy Task Force argues parts of the project are simply not needed. CETA backers say the proposed 345 kilovolt power line that is proposed to come through parts of Eureka and Castle Rock townships and end in Hampton could pose health problems, and certainly decrease property value.

Perhaps most of all, though, CETA members want to make sure that landowners along the route are fairly compensated for the land that the utility companies will acquire for construction of those power lines.

But one of the biggest issues Maccabee and Topp see landowners facing is their ability to be appropriately compensated for the land the utilities group will acquire for construction of the power lines.

The concept is not a foreign one to the area. In 2007, a group of Empire township residents took Great River Energy to court over a 115 kV power line. One homeowner had initially been offered $14,600 for the easement by Great River Energy, but after an appeal received $55,000. The only problem was, a chunk of that award went to the lawyer who fought for the group.

Topp and Maccabee would like to see something built into the state’s laws that support landowners’ rights, but any such legislation did not get introduced this year, Topp said.

Local owners fighting with low transmission companies seem to be endemic to the system. Making the system fair to the affected owners is difficult.

The costs to the individual owner can be overwhelming. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Wayne Independent

The Upper Delaware Council, Inc. (UDC) delivered testimony at a November 5 public hearing convened by the New York State Department of Public Service in Hancock to gather input on the application by New York Regional Interconnect, Inc. (NYRI) to construct a high voltage direct current transmission line on a 190-mile path between Marcy and Rock Tavern, NY.
The New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) will determine by August of 2009 whether to grant NYRI a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need for its proposed $2.1 billion power line.
The two Administrative Law Judges assigned to the case, Jeffrey Stockholm and Michelle Phillips, agreed to hold 13 public information forums between October 20 and November 6 in the seven New York State counties affected by the proposed route to personally hear statements and create a record for their review.
The UDC was represented at three of the hearings which took place on Oct. 29 at the Delaware Community Center in Callicoon and Sullivan West Central High School in Lake Huntington, and on Nov. 5 at Hancock Central School in Hancock.

A valid claim of a power line being the cause of substantial environmental damage may be the only defense to the overwhelming power to utility project routing. The Congressional delegation is clear in the public policy support for utility expansion in order to improve the power grid. We can only hope that the profit making endeavors of the utilities will recognize the damage they cause to individual owners and the dangers to the environmental well being of the community.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Salt Lake Tribune

Bear River Valley landowners, angry over Rocky Mountain Power's route for a major northern Utah transmission line, have arrived at a sobering conclusion.

   “The power in Rocky Mountain Power means something other than electricity,” says Richard Nicholas, whose land here will be traversed by the 345-kilovolt line scheduled to begin construction soon.

    “People have no rights, and that's wrong. We have been bullied around . . . Power companies have more power than government!”

   Nicholas' sentiment - if not his blunt appraisal - is echoed by Box Elder County mayors and commissioners. They believe they had no real say in where the 150-foot-wide power corridor goes through their communities and countryside.

-Local communities are regularly exasperated at the conduct of the power companies' routing of lines through the most pristine or populated areas.

The problem is not simply one of location, but rather one of whether the permitting authority, be it the FERC or the state Public Service Commission has broad discretion in limiting the lines in accord with the public desires. 

As set forth in the attached article there may be an additional cost in the establishment of a line in accord with the community request for routing. However, the locals have a right to be heard. The issue is whether the licensing (permitting) authority has the empowerment to review, and the discretion to modify the route. 

If the discretion is available under the Congressional or state grant of authority to the licensing authority the question is becomes, what is the appropriate standard to change the route to satisfy the local community's requests?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

WASHINGTON (AP), March 6, 2008

New power line construction is more likely in the Mid-Atlantic States and the Southwest after the government on Thursday said it was pushing ahead with a plan to expand and modernize the electric grid in those areas.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

MPSC- Michigan Case No. U-14861, February 28, 2008

-An Opinion and Press Release, found under the MPSC filing, rejected the Hartland Township and owners’ challenge to the project. This is the final part of the proceeding with offers and the filing of the condemnation complaints for major transmission lines, which will destroy the aesthetic attractiveness to a number of communities in Livingston and Oakland Counties.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Detroit News, September 18, 2007

Hartland Township residents have enlisted state legislators in their battle against a plan to build overhead electric transmission lines through the county, but that's not an appropriate way to deal with the issue.

Officials in the Livingston County community and some residents have been protesting a state-approved plan for more than a year that allows ITC Transmission to install 95-foot tall power poles for the delivery of electricity to the growing area.

It is not, however, the state Legislature's job to micromanage the affairs of local communities or the companies that provide power and other services to meet their needs. That rests with the MPSC, which has already approved the project.

ITC addressed the issues and followed a MPSC request to change the route, which will add an estimated $2.2 million to the project. If forced to bury the lines, project costs will increase anywhere from $15 million to $40 million, ITC officials say. Those costs will be passed on to consumers.

-The author of this blog frequently agrees with the Detroit News Opinion page on land use. However, this time around, one is bound to disagree.

One of the few outlets we have to respond to land acquisitions is to seek relief via the legislative process. We should not be upset if the owners in this area are successful. The alternative would be no opportunity to respond to the actions taken by franchises granted by the government!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Pittsburgh Post Gazette, June 11, 2007

The NIETC designation is important to those property owners because of Allegheny Power's plan to construct a 37-mile, 500-kilovolt power line through Washington and Greene counties, to a power station to be built in Dunkard, Greene County.

When completed, the line would run for 240 miles, through West Virginia and Maryland, ending in Northern Virginia, an area which has been losing power plants. Allegheny Power officials say that the Pennsylvania portion would serve local residents only.

Part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 allows the DOE to designate critical areas as national interest corridors, and to seize private property if needed. Perhaps the most controversial provision locally is the federal government's right to override state permitting decisions for transmission lines.

If a state denies a permit, makes no decision on it within one year or places too many conditions on a power company permit, the federal government has backstop authority to grant construction permits, superseding state and local regulations.

..."This is power companies having the right to condemn private property for profits," he said. …

…At issue are right of way easements purchased by Allegheny Power three decades ago in anticipation of a power line that would serve the booming steel industry.

When that didn't materialize, property owners thought the company had abandoned the rights of way. Because those deals sometimes didn't make it onto the rural deeds, some owners were recently surprised to learn they were sharing property with the power company.  Read Full Article

- This article is one of the few that has dealt with the issue in an unemotional fashion, recognizing that local opposition, if irrational, may well be subordinated to future federal action in order to enhance interstate commerce.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Charleston Post, November 5, 2007

The governors of South Carolina and Georgia are set to unveil a plan this month to create a new maritime agency to build a port along the Savannah River in Jasper County.

The agreement between the states would put an end to a long-running legal tussle over rights to develop the 1,800-acre property, regarded as one of the last available sites on the East Coast where a major container terminal could be built from scratch.

The announcement by Gov. Mark Sanford and Gov. Sonny Perdue could come as soon as next week. The Commerce Department in Columbia said Friday that negotiations had been finalized.

"I think it's an agreement the ports authority's board will approve," he said. .

People familiar with its findings but who are unauthorized to discuss them publicly said the task force is recommending:
--A new dual-state agency to build and operate the port.
--A six-member agency board, with two members from the S.C. State Ports Authority, two from the Georgia Ports Authority and one member appointed by each of the governors.
--Equal ownership of the site.
--An end to any efforts to acquire the land through government condemnation.
--Unwinding a deal that allows the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to use the property as a dredge- disposal site.

-This article resolves the substantial issue of a State controlling property within its own State. Georgia and South Carolina have been fighting for years over the ownership of a property to be condemned in the other State. Finally, they are reaching a position of working this out.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks