Unjust Compensation for Landowners

Since the United States Congress ordered the construction of a fence on the US-Mexican border to reduce illegal immigration, several landowners residing on the border have had their land condemned for the public project. These landowners obviously want to receive the fair price for their property, yet many accept the initial offer from the government that is far below the market value. The majority of those who accepted the first offer were those who didn’t seek legal consultation from an eminent domain lawyer, only to find out later that their neighbors had received much larger settlements after hiring attorneys.

When the US government condemns property from a landowner for a public project they are required by the Constitution to provide compensation. The process is known as eminent domain. When Congress ordered the construction of the fence in 2006, the project required many landowners on the border from Texas to California to give up their property for the project.

However, the amount of money offered to the landowners was not just compensation. The initial offers from the government were far below market value, and those who could not afford property rights lawyers were not able to receive as much as their counterparts who could. Federal lawyers claim that these first offers were a 'starting amount' that would allow the condemnation to begin and could be adjusted later - but with no legal help, the landowners have no option but to accept the first offer. Thus, the amount of compensation received can be different for two landowners, even if the same area of land was condemned.

Several lawyers who represent lower-class landowners believe that this inconsistency in compensation underlines how unjust the first offers were. It raises questions regarding the government's treatment of landowners who couldn’t afford legal help and now have to live with a huge fence running through their land. 

The variation in settlements, some say, is proof that the government is taking the land from the landowners for unjust compensation. Those landowners who can not afford a just compensation attorney are at a loss. According to the Associated Press, in an analysis of approximately three-hundred eminent domain cases, 85 percent of the near $15 million that has been awarded in settlement was given to just one-third of the property holders - all of whom had legal aid. 

Most of the fence construction was completed two years ago, but the government is still negotiating for land surrounding the project.

California simplifies solar panel permit process

It is projected that over one million more solar panels will be installed on roofs in California over the next few years, thanks to California's Governor, Jerry Brown. Governor Brown is helping solar power San Diego ventures, as well as other cities statewide, in their advancement through the signing the California Senate Bill 1222.

The California Senate Bill 1222 simplifies the process of acquiring the permits – business, residential, or other – needed to install rooftop solar panels. The bill will limit and standardize the fees that a county or city can charge within the permit process. Although the cost of acquiring permits differs across the state, the new bill states that in general, “high permitting fees increase the costs of installations and reduce the ability for solar to be deployed across all income spectrums.”

Under the bill, it will be easier for all residential and business owners to obtain permits to install solar panels. Following the permit process, they can then continue to contact a solar panel installation company, such as Solaire Energy Systems, to install the solar panels on their roofs. The solar panels will then lower their utility bills and help California lessen its carbon footprint.

Governor Brown, in addition to the California Senate Bill 1222, also signed 18 additional new clean energy bills into state law. If California wishes to become a true green economy, then such legislative action is necessary.

California’s top solar city: San Diego

In January 2012, a report was published by Environment California naming San Diego California’s top solar city. San Diego solar usage came in first when compared to the state’s other cities in terms of government, commercial, and residential solar installations.

San Diego also leads in the total amount solar power generated. The city has completed over 4,500 projects and generates around 37 megawatts of solar power. For reference, 1 megawatt is equal to the power used by approximately 750 homes. 

In addition to lowering the state's dependence on non-renewable energy sources, solaire energy systems are are also for the economy. The state’s solar installation market is projected to grow. Experts predict 1 million residential solar projects will be completed by 2020, which will add $30 billion to the economy and create 20,000 jobs each year.

Both the State and the Federal Government provides subsidies and incentives to residents who decide to invest in solar energy. Approximately 40 percent of the entire cost of installation can be covered. From there, it takes around three to seven years for the return on investment. 

Solar panel systems are becoming the norm for many home and business owners in California, and they have become increasingly in style as well. Not only are they popular, but innovative types of solar panels these days permit solar power systems to generate near 100 percent of energy needs.

San Diego Walmart 100th store to use solar power

Walmart has an ambitious goal for their stores to run entirely on renewable energy. Recently, the chain supply store took one step closer to reaching its goal when they announced that its San Diego, California, store will be using rooftop solar panels to generate power. The San Diego solar project will be Walmart’s 100^th store to go solar.  

The company's vast size gives it an advantage in utilizing new energy technology. Walmart has been installing solar panels on their store's roofs since 1998, and uses more solar power than any other company in the United States – beating other chain stores like IKEA and Macy’s. In total, Walmart’s Solaire energy systems generate approximately 65,000 kilowatts. And not only will does Walmart’s project contribute to lessening its carbon footprint, but it also creates jobs. In total, the company's focus on solar power has created over 3,000 jobs in California.

California, also called the 'Sunshine State', is known for it's innovative policies and clean energy bills. In total, the state is projected to generate over 70 million kilowatts of solar energy per year – enough to supply approximately 6,000 homes. In addition, solar power would lessen the states annual carbon dioxide emissions by around 22,000 metric tons. 

Poll reveals voters strongly support solar energy use in the U.S.

Nine out of ten voters believe it's important for the U.S. to develop and use more solar energy, according to a new survey. The independent polling firm Hart Research Associates, found likely voters in the 2012 election overwhelmingly support solar energy and would like to see the government do more to help the industry grow in the U.S.

This is good news for solar companies in San Diego county, the region with the highest concentration of solar energy companies in the country. Especially considering the support was strong across the political spectrum with 84 percent of Republicans, 95 percent of independents, and 98 percent of Democrats agreeing that the U.S. needs more solar power. 

"American voters have spoken loud and clear – they love solar and they want more of it. Republicans, independents, and Democrats are unified in calling on Congress to increase our use of solar energy in America," said Rhone Resch, President and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association in a press release. 

In the survey, almost four out of five of voters said the government should provide tax credits and financial incentives to encourage the development and use of solar energy. Voters' favorable view of solar translates directly into widespread bipartisan support for federal incentives fostering solar energy. Sixty-seven percent of swing voters preferred solar above any other energy source to receive tax and financial incentives. 

The poll consisted of 1,206 U.S. voters, including a heavy sampling of swing voters, who made up up two-thirds of all polled individuals. According to Hart Research, the swing voter sample included only respondents who did not indicate a strong or consistent partisan voting history. The poll was conducted online September 4 to 9 and was commissioned by SEIA. 

Today more than 100,000 Americans work at 5,600 solar energy companies across the nation in all 50 states. The industry more than doubled the amount of solar installed in the U.S. in the second quarter of this year compared to 2011, and growth is expected to continue in the second half of 2012. 

Industry experts say the average system price of a San Diego solar system has dropped 50 percent since 2007. Innovations in system financing have made solar more affordable than ever before. Today, major U.S. brands rely on solar to keep costs low for consumers. 

According to the press release, the top 10 states for total solar electric capacity are (in descending order): California, New Jersey, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, and North Carolina.

Landowners sue Nebraska governor over eminent domain use for Keystone XL

A group of landowners in Nebraska is suing their state governor in order to stop the Keystone XL pipeline project, which is being built to transport tar sands petroleum from Alberta to oil refineries in Texas.

Inside Climate News reported this group of landowners, who recently helped stop TransCanada’s plan to build through Nebraska’s environmentally-sensitive Sandhills area, have said the laws upholding pipeline construction are unconstitutional, but state officials are disregarding the suit, saying it should be thrown out because eminent domain lawyer teams representing the landowners have no right to make the challenge.

The group, led by Randy Thompson, Susan Luebbe and Susan Dunavan has challenged Nebraska's controversial "pipeline siting" law by filing a suit against Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman, the state treasurer and the director of the Department of Environmental Quality.

According to the landowners, the pipeline siting law, which went into effect last April, allows the oil company and other energy corporations to avoid rigorous environmental assessments by working through the DEQ, and not through the state's Public Service Commission.

While TransCanada's new route avoids the fragile Sandhills ecosystem, but it still crosses the Ogallal aquifer, one of the most important water sources in the state. 

Legal experts say the State Department will have the final say on whether to approve the Keystone XL's northern leg because it crosses a national border, but Nebraska regulators are largely responsible for determining whether the pipeline's route through the state is safe to people and the environment.

The pipeline sitting law also gives Gov. Heineman, who is in complete support of the project, the ultimate authority to approve or reject the Nebraska route. The law even lets TransCanada confiscate private land for Keystone XL construction through eminent domain before the project is federally approved. 

In response, the landowners want the law declared unconstitutional for giving the governor "unlawful" authority over pipelines and their private property. But it's still unclear if the case will be allowed to proceed.

Eminent domain attorney teams working on the case from the Nebraska Attorney General's office argued that the suit should be thrown out during a hearing last September. They said landowners have no right to challenge the $2 million pipeline review process because it isn't being funded by taxpayers. 

To this day, the route of the Keystone XL and it’s ultimate fate remain unclear, but judging from the state of the legal battles in Nebraska, it seems clear that governments support the project.

Energy company spars with landowners over pipeline in Michigan

Condemnation lawyer offices are hard at work in southern Michigan as Enbridge Energy plans to replace one of its pipelines that runs through the area. 

The pipeline that is being replaced is the same one that caused a major oil spill in Marshall about two years ago. Enbridge Energy representatives say the new pipeline will double the oil transportation capacities to refineries in Detroit, Toledo and Sarnia, Ontario.

In order to build the pipeline, the company says it needs additional easement next to the current 60 foot easement that runs through many people’s backyards. Enbridge says many people who own land along the pipeline route have signed contracts with the company.  But Enbridge is taking people who refuse to sign contracts to court Michigan Radio reports.

A county judge heard arguments against more than a dozen landowners.  Many locals gathered to fight against the energy giant and are saying the company is unfairly using eminent domain and condemnation laws, which were originally designed to help state governments build public projects. 

"Enbridge has taken us to condemnation. Eminent domain is another word for it.  And because we wouldn’t sign their contract as it was, they brought us to court to take the land."

More than four months have passed since Enbridge repaired sections of the current pipeline running through a resident’s backyard. But locals say Enbridge workers brought in lights and worked in their yard with heavy equipment day and night, causing inconvenient disturbances and loud noises for the in the family occupied neighborhood.

Some families say the work caused cracks in their foundation and caused other damage they say they have not been compensated for. Condemnation attorney experts have said many remain unsatisfied with the offers Enbridge made for their land for the new pipeline.