Fed Planning to Usurp States using Eminent Domain with Stimulus
The veil has been lifted from the Democrats’ so-called ‘green’ agenda. It is nothing less than a sage costume hiding the naked thrust of their tyranny. Using the $800 billion taken from taxpayers through the stimulus package, Democrat leaders are pushing to override state laws and seize the private land of farmers to build transmission lines bringing energy owned by elite party contributors.
Does everyone really want renewable energy brought in from distant producers over power lines subsidized by the federal government? Maybe not, says [MA energy secretary] Ian Bowles…”When you decide upfront [that] transmission is the problem, you’ve put your hand on the scale and said, ‘We want to help out particularly those remote sources of wind and green electricity.’ “
The man picked by President Obama to resolve these questions is Jon Wellinghoff, the new chairman at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
…For a power line to cross 10 states, each of those states must approve that siting. Wellinghoff hopes he’ll soon have the authority to overrule states if they balk. FERC had that power until recently when a federal court took it away, and now the Senate Energy Committee is writing a bill that would give it back to FERC. The bill has strong support from members of Congress who want to see a new grid built quickly.
Last month, Democrat Senate leader Harry Reid called for the authority to usurp states using eminent domain.
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., on Monday offered his strongest call yet in favor of empowering federal regulators to decide where to build new power lines, saying that the authority was necessary to overcome roadblocks.
“I will not be satisfied with an energy bill unless it has a strong component that allows transmission,” Reid said at a clean-energy summit that he sponsored. He accused the scores of regulators who have a say over where power lines are located of having a “stranglehold” over electricity. He said that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission needed the ability to seize land, if need be, in order to get power lines built.
Without new power lines to connect to customers, developers will not build new wind and solar facilities. That is a major reason that lawmakers such as Reid are intent on making it easier to build transmission lines, which typically get slowed amid opposition from residents who do not want to live near power lines.
So in Harry Reid’s America, residents who oppose having their land seized to construct power lines are roadblocks which must be overcome.
In one Maryland county alone, 640 acres, much of which is privately owned farmland, is scheduled to be taken for the construction of interstate power lines. This project, which will not create a single job in the county, is being planned despite the fact that there is no evidence of unreliable transmission in the area.
Construction of a $1.2 billion high-power electricity corridor could allow private companies to invoke Federal eminent domain powers.
The corridor is planned for parts of Ohio, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia and Virginia. The 500-kilovolt transmission lines are anticipated to be 150 feet high and 70 feet wide, requiring a 200-foot wide swath of land to be cleared.
In my Maryland county, this amounts to 640 acres of land seized – the bulk of which cuts through working farmland and 200-year-old forests. According to the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy (ESLC), Pepco Holdings, Inc (PHI) has stated that they do not anticipate the project will bring jobs to local counties, nor do they anticipate utilizing local contractors to do the work.
The ESLC also says there is no evidence that current energy transmission is unreliable in this area, though PHI claims the line is critical to long-term electrical reliability.
At a recent town hall with Rep. Kratovil (D-MD), farmers expressed concerns related to permanent loss of productive land, reduced property values, interference with irrigation systems and spraying their fields. For example, most farmers in this area use crop-dusting airplanes to spray their crops, which typically use a spray boom just 10-12 feet above the crop canopy. Being forced to spray from an altitude higher than 150 feet would result in significant cost increases, as well as high levels of overspray into protected watersheds and neighboring properties.
If the project is rejected at the state level, federal eminent domain powers could be envoked.
In the event that the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway is not approved by the Maryland Public Service Commission, PHI would be able use the power of eminent domain under Federal authority. Section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides authority for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to review and override state siting decisions as well as other federal and state laws and policy and confer federal eminent domain to private companies for transmission line siting. The ability to override a decision by the Maryland Public Service Commission, as well as other state and local zoning ordinances, conflicts with policies concerning conservation, agriculture, transportation, and other land use decisions.
Seizing private land is merely the first step in the fascist ‘green’ agenda. The next is to impose legislation to track and tax the energy usage and disposal, or ‘carbon footprint’, of every man, woman, and child in the country. In addition to this invasion of privacy at home and in our cars, this includes the very breath which we exhale (carbon dioxide). We would be forced to buy ‘carbon credits’ from fraudsters for our right to exist.
Customs agents arrested nine people in the London area suspected of a multimillion dollar fraud in trading carbon permits, bringing attention to a rich new field for crime sprung from the fight against climate change.
The arrest confirmed fears among law enforcement officers that swindlers — operating from the trading floors of Europe to the tropical forests of the Pacific — are being attracted to a market that has grown to more than $100 billion.
A few years ago, carbon dioxide, for most people, was just the breath you exhaled. Today it’s more likely to be seen as a pollutant derived from fossil fuels that needs regulation, making permission to produce it a commodity that can be traded like gold, oil or hog futures.
…That carbon market will get a lot bigger if the U.S. Congress passes its own cap-and-trade bill, the central component of President Barack Obama’s climate and energy policies.
The presence of fraud within the carbon credit market is inherent to the fact that the system was constructed around a hoax. The human body, which itself is 18% carbon, is not a pollutant. We should not allow lies to become policy.
The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax us citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way: the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global warming. A majority of American citizens are now becoming skeptical of the claim that our carbon footprints, resulting from our use of fossil fuels, are going to lead to climatic calamities. But governments are not yet listening to the citizens.
Let us stand with those such as John Coleman, the founder of ‘The Weather Channel’, who has with the support of thousands of scientists called out Al Gore and his liberal friends for their false claims (video link here).
John Coleman, who founded the cable network in 1982, suggests suing for fraud proponents of global warming, including Al Gore, and companies that sell carbon credits.
“Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question,” Coleman said.
“Since we can’t get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue,” Coleman said. “I’m confident that the advocates of ‘no significant effect from carbon dioxide’ would win the case.”