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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link