Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 04 MAY 2018

Blurring Necessity And Just Compensation – Pipeline Development Dilemma

Dickinson Wright PLLC
Dickinson Wright PLLC
Contributor
Dickinson Wright PLLC

Dickinson Wright PLLC

Dickinson Wright is a full-service law firm with more than 550 lawyers, serving clients across the...

View firm profile
Explore more from Dickinson Wright PLLC

As renewable energy increases, and with coal being phased out, landowners and environmental advocacy groups have begun to focus on pipeline development, concentrating on the "need" to account for...

United StatesEnergy and Natural Resources

As renewable energy increases, and with coal being phased out, landowners and environmental advocacy groups have begun to focus on pipeline development, concentrating on the "need" to account for downstream greenhouse gas emissions and pipeline developers' use of condemnation powers. For eminent domain, the argument includes that its application against landowners may be "improper", even raising constitutional claims once thought previously addressed. Such arguments have blurred the line between the public necessity of a pipeline project—the constitutional prerequisite for a valid taking—and the appropriate just compensation due a landowner. For natural gas pipelines and other pipelines subject to federal regulation, the pipeline company's eminent domain authority arises after the necessity determination (conditional or otherwise) by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC").1 Thus, a landowner's rights are not "jeopardized." Instead, the landowner is,

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from