There was plenty of cause for outrage after the House Water Resources and Infrastructure Committee passed SB 967, the Alcoa takeover bill, 8-7 today.
The main one: The North Carolina General Assembly has put into motion a process that would let the state potentially seize four hydroelectric dams from one private operator (Alcoa Power Generating Inc.) and turn them over to another (including Duke Energy or Progress Energy) that has more political juice.
It’s a replay of the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous 2005 Kelo v. New London. In that ruling, the court said it was OK for the government to “facilitate” such private-to-private transfers if the taking served a “public purpose.”
Advocates of the takeover went to embarrassing lengths making that case.
At the hearing, Sen. Fletcher Hartsell, R-Cabarrus, essentially accused Alcoa of murder. He cited the tragic death from cancer of a 51-year-old man who hunted and fished along Badin and High Rock lakes (where Alcoa dams are located) and was reportedly found with elevated levels of PCBs in his system. We could launch into a lengthy discussion distinguishing correlation from causation, but think of it this way: The state is now responsible for regulating water quality in those lakes. If it’s failed at its job so far, what makes you think it would have any incentive to be more diligent once a sister state agency rather than a corporate giant ran the dams?
Then there was Secretary of Commerce Keith Crisco, who inaccurately called the 50-year license the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted in 1958 to Alcoa a “rental agreement” that was violated when Alcoa shut down its smelting plant and laid off workers. No, it was a license from the federal government to operate hydroelectric dams. To be sure, the dams were built to supply power to the smelting plant. But Alcoa continues to produce energy even though the plant no longer operates.
Finally, there was the high-handed manner in which Committee Chairman Cullie Tarleton, D-Watauga, ran the 45-minute hearing. Tarleton allowed presentations from Hartsell — who’s a senator, not a House member — Crisco — who’s in the executive branch — and Alcoa representative Gene Ellis, which consumed nearly 30 of the 45 minutes. By the time a committee staffer had explained the language of the Proposed Committee Substitute the committee was considering, there may have been 10 minutes for discussion and questions before the vote.
This is serious legislation that could give the state significant new regulatory powers — and could place taxpayers on the hook for at least $500 million. Tarleton should have opened with a summary of the bill, which includes several brand new provisions that fundamentally alters the legislation, and allowed discussion from there.
The major change: SB 967 would allow the Yadkin River Trust to “enter into a contract with an investor-owned utility, electric membership corporation, or other qualified third party with experience in the operation of electric generating facilities to operate the Yadkin Project on behalf of the Trust.”
That’s right. The bill would facilitate a Kelo-like taking.
As opponent Rep. Mitch Gillespie, R-McDowell, said at the hearing, SB 967 would set a precedent that could be used to seize any private, independent power-producing facility in the state.
