Author Topic: CMP Corridor  (Read 1135 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: CMP Corridor
« Reply #15 on: October 17, 2021, 05:02:17 PM »

Offline sgrogan

  • Dennis Schroder
  • Posts: 202
  • Tommy Points: 11
I'd have to defer to someone more knowledgeable than me, but.....
If someone is incarcerated from something that was illegal at the time of the act, I could see releasing them, if it was presently legal.
If someone committed an act, that was legal at the time, they shouldn't be incarcerated if the law changed after the fact.

A prior approval? Is it a law, regulation, rule? I don't know.

Re: CMP Corridor
« Reply #16 on: October 17, 2021, 05:11:28 PM »

Offline kraidstar

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3511
  • Tommy Points: 985
I'd have to defer to someone more knowledgeable than me, but.....
If someone is incarcerated from something that was illegal at the time of the act, I could see releasing them, if it was presently legal.
If someone committed an act, that was legal at the time, they shouldn't be incarcerated if the law changed after the fact.

A prior approval? Is it a law, regulation, rule? I don't know.

That has nothing at all to do with this. Nobody is going to jail or being released because of Question 1. It is specifically designed to override the corridor deal.

Ballot text:
 Do you want to ban the construction of high-impact electric transmission lines in the Upper Kennebec Region and to require the Legislature to approve all other such projects anywhere in Maine, both retroactively to 2020, and to require the Legislature, retroactively to 2014, to approve by a two-thirds vote such projects using public land?

Re: CMP Corridor
« Reply #17 on: October 17, 2021, 05:19:12 PM »

Offline sgrogan

  • Dennis Schroder
  • Posts: 202
  • Tommy Points: 11
I'd have to defer to someone more knowledgeable than me, but.....
If someone is incarcerated from something that was illegal at the time of the act, I could see releasing them, if it was presently legal.
If someone committed an act, that was legal at the time, they shouldn't be incarcerated if the law changed after the fact.

A prior approval? Is it a law, regulation, rule? I don't know.

That has nothing at all to do with this. Nobody is going to jail or being released because of Question 1. It is specifically designed to override the corridor deal.

Ballot text:
 Do you want to ban the construction of high-impact electric transmission lines in the Upper Kennebec Region and to require the Legislature to approve all other such projects anywhere in Maine, both retroactively to 2020, and to require the Legislature, retroactively to 2014, to approve by a two-thirds vote such projects using public land?
I'm sorry, but you don't believe, despite the specific text, that this wouldn't be used as precident in the future?

Re: CMP Corridor
« Reply #18 on: October 17, 2021, 05:22:16 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47184
  • Tommy Points: -26821
  • Once A CrotoNat, Always A CrotoNat
I'd have to defer to someone more knowledgeable than me, but.....
If someone is incarcerated from something that was illegal at the time of the act, I could see releasing them, if it was presently legal.
If someone committed an act, that was legal at the time, they shouldn't be incarcerated if the law changed after the fact.

A prior approval? Is it a law, regulation, rule? I don't know.

That has nothing at all to do with this. Nobody is going to jail or being released because of Question 1. It is specifically designed to override the corridor deal.

Ballot text:
 Do you want to ban the construction of high-impact electric transmission lines in the Upper Kennebec Region and to require the Legislature to approve all other such projects anywhere in Maine, both retroactively to 2020, and to require the Legislature, retroactively to 2014, to approve by a two-thirds vote such projects using public land?
I'm sorry, but you don't believe, despite the specific text, that this wouldn't be used as precident in the future?

It’s already allowed, though.  Read the article I linked.  There’s no precedent.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: CMP Corridor
« Reply #19 on: October 17, 2021, 05:32:50 PM »

Offline sgrogan

  • Dennis Schroder
  • Posts: 202
  • Tommy Points: 11
I'd have to defer to someone more knowledgeable than me, but.....
If someone is incarcerated from something that was illegal at the time of the act, I could see releasing them, if it was presently legal.
If someone committed an act, that was legal at the time, they shouldn't be incarcerated if the law changed after the fact.

A prior approval? Is it a law, regulation, rule? I don't know.

That has nothing at all to do with this. Nobody is going to jail or being released because of Question 1. It is specifically designed to override the corridor deal.

Ballot text:
 Do you want to ban the construction of high-impact electric transmission lines in the Upper Kennebec Region and to require the Legislature to approve all other such projects anywhere in Maine, both retroactively to 2020, and to require the Legislature, retroactively to 2014, to approve by a two-thirds vote such projects using public land?
I'm sorry, but you don't believe, despite the specific text, that this wouldn't be used as precident in the future?

It’s already allowed, though.  Read the article I linked.  There’s no precedent.
I'm over my head but
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/retroactive
If the previous action was mischeives maybe,  it "shouldn't" be a new standard.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2021, 05:54:45 PM by sgrogan »

Re: CMP Corridor
« Reply #20 on: October 17, 2021, 06:03:43 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47184
  • Tommy Points: -26821
  • Once A CrotoNat, Always A CrotoNat
I'd have to defer to someone more knowledgeable than me, but.....
If someone is incarcerated from something that was illegal at the time of the act, I could see releasing them, if it was presently legal.
If someone committed an act, that was legal at the time, they shouldn't be incarcerated if the law changed after the fact.

A prior approval? Is it a law, regulation, rule? I don't know.

That has nothing at all to do with this. Nobody is going to jail or being released because of Question 1. It is specifically designed to override the corridor deal.

Ballot text:
 Do you want to ban the construction of high-impact electric transmission lines in the Upper Kennebec Region and to require the Legislature to approve all other such projects anywhere in Maine, both retroactively to 2020, and to require the Legislature, retroactively to 2014, to approve by a two-thirds vote such projects using public land?
I'm sorry, but you don't believe, despite the specific text, that this wouldn't be used as precident in the future?

It’s already allowed, though.  Read the article I linked.  There’s no precedent.
I'm over my head but
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/retroactive
If the previous action was mischeives maybe,  it "shouldn't" be a new standard.

Even the “No” campaign acknowledges that Maine law currently allows retroactivity, though.

Quote
Politicians already have the power to issue laws and resolves with retroactive components, and it has been done in Maine dozens of times in the past two decades.

When pressed, the 'No on 1' campaign recognizes that, but still argues it's bad policy, and unfair to Central Maine Power.

"Politicians do have the power to work with retroactive laws," Adrienne Bennett, the spokesperson for Mainers for Fair Laws, a PAC which opposes Question 1, said. "However, whether or not there is the power already in place to do so, retroactive lawmaking is simply a bad way to make public policy."

And, although I’m not an expert on this issue, I believe the “retroactivity” that is being objected to is an illegal land deal where a permit was issued contrary to state law.  Our lower courts have already made that finding.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: CMP Corridor
« Reply #21 on: October 17, 2021, 06:14:49 PM »

Offline sgrogan

  • Dennis Schroder
  • Posts: 202
  • Tommy Points: 11
The latest;
"If you want to protect Maine's environment there is one choice, vote no on question one"
But if I were to vote no on question one, I am voting to oppose opposing it.

Yikes.  The whole campaign has made my vote easy. I’m just voting for the least dishonest side, which means yes on one.
I don't disagree, but they have forced you to support "retro-active laws"

Question one doesn’t really do anything that isn’t already authorized in other aspects, however.

https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/politics/maine-politics/question-1-does-not-give-lawmakers-additional-power/97-ff8a16d5-efee-4686-acde-465ba7d7862d
In the past retroactively looks to minimize penalties. You were unfairly taxed so you get a refund. Not you were under taxed and owe a penalty.

Re: CMP Corridor
« Reply #22 on: October 17, 2021, 06:20:59 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47184
  • Tommy Points: -26821
  • Once A CrotoNat, Always A CrotoNat
The latest;
"If you want to protect Maine's environment there is one choice, vote no on question one"
But if I were to vote no on question one, I am voting to oppose opposing it.

Yikes.  The whole campaign has made my vote easy. I’m just voting for the least dishonest side, which means yes on one.
I don't disagree, but they have forced you to support "retro-active laws"

Question one doesn’t really do anything that isn’t already authorized in other aspects, however.

https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/politics/maine-politics/question-1-does-not-give-lawmakers-additional-power/97-ff8a16d5-efee-4686-acde-465ba7d7862d
In the past retroactively looks to minimize penalties. You were unfairly taxed so you get a refund. Not you were under taxed and owe a penalty.

What about “you benefitted from a sleazy, illegal backroom deal”?


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: CMP Corridor
« Reply #23 on: October 17, 2021, 07:04:25 PM »

Offline kraidstar

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3511
  • Tommy Points: 985
The latest;
"If you want to protect Maine's environment there is one choice, vote no on question one"
But if I were to vote no on question one, I am voting to oppose opposing it.

Yikes.  The whole campaign has made my vote easy. I’m just voting for the least dishonest side, which means yes on one.
I don't disagree, but they have forced you to support "retro-active laws"

Question one doesn’t really do anything that isn’t already authorized in other aspects, however.

https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/politics/maine-politics/question-1-does-not-give-lawmakers-additional-power/97-ff8a16d5-efee-4686-acde-465ba7d7862d
In the past retroactively looks to minimize penalties. You were unfairly taxed so you get a refund. Not you were under taxed and owe a penalty.

What about “you benefitted from a sleazy, illegal backroom deal”?

I wonder if i can lease 53 miles of land for my business, send all the profits out of state, all on the promise of having a handful of employees stay in state.

Where do i sign?!? I need to get Janet Mills on the phone asap!!!

Re: CMP Corridor
« Reply #24 on: October 18, 2021, 12:14:56 PM »

Offline sgrogan

  • Dennis Schroder
  • Posts: 202
  • Tommy Points: 11
The latest;
"If you want to protect Maine's environment there is one choice, vote no on question one"
But if I were to vote no on question one, I am voting to oppose opposing it.

Yikes.  The whole campaign has made my vote easy. I’m just voting for the least dishonest side, which means yes on one.
I don't disagree, but they have forced you to support "retro-active laws"

Question one doesn’t really do anything that isn’t already authorized in other aspects, however.

https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/politics/maine-politics/question-1-does-not-give-lawmakers-additional-power/97-ff8a16d5-efee-4686-acde-465ba7d7862d
In the past retroactively looks to minimize penalties. You were unfairly taxed so you get a refund. Not you were under taxed and owe a penalty.

What about “you benefitted from a sleazy, illegal backroom deal”?
Don't get me wrong, I think its a bad deal for Maine and I hope the project is stopped.
Wouldn't Quebec Hydro's argument be
We made a sleazy, legal, backroom deal, and on the basis of that invested X amount of money.  Retroactively the deal is being made illegal.

 If the deal was illegal in the first place, and understand this tract is also being followed, then I would be more comfortable.

Anyway, as a non resident this is more of an academic discussion for me. I appreciate the education.
It looks like this is the same as the "Northern Pass" in NH which failed because it was a bad deal for NH.

Re: CMP Corridor
« Reply #25 on: October 18, 2021, 12:26:25 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47184
  • Tommy Points: -26821
  • Once A CrotoNat, Always A CrotoNat
The latest;
"If you want to protect Maine's environment there is one choice, vote no on question one"
But if I were to vote no on question one, I am voting to oppose opposing it.

Yikes.  The whole campaign has made my vote easy. I’m just voting for the least dishonest side, which means yes on one.
I don't disagree, but they have forced you to support "retro-active laws"

Question one doesn’t really do anything that isn’t already authorized in other aspects, however.

https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/politics/maine-politics/question-1-does-not-give-lawmakers-additional-power/97-ff8a16d5-efee-4686-acde-465ba7d7862d
In the past retroactively looks to minimize penalties. You were unfairly taxed so you get a refund. Not you were under taxed and owe a penalty.

What about “you benefitted from a sleazy, illegal backroom deal”?
Don't get me wrong, I think its a bad deal for Maine and I hope the project is stopped.
Wouldn't Quebec Hydro's argument be
We made a sleazy, legal, backroom deal, and on the basis of that invested X amount of money.  Retroactively the deal is being made illegal.

 If the deal was illegal in the first place, and understand this tract is also being followed, then I would be more comfortable.

Anyway, as a non resident this is more of an academic discussion for me. I appreciate the education.
It looks like this is the same as the "Northern Pass" in NH which failed because it was a bad deal for NH.

It’s been ruled illegal.  Michaela Murphy is a very good judge, so I tend to trust her conclusions.  If her decision is reversed by the Law Court, I’m still fine with the citizenry weighing in here.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: CMP Corridor
« Reply #26 on: October 18, 2021, 12:45:02 PM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4207
  • Tommy Points: 431
Ya I dont know much about maine law, but I do find the whole project incredibly stupid.

Basically in order to export a ton of power to mass maine has to allow for 150+ miles of high energy power pylons to be built through there state and the only benefit they get is a handful of jobs and a slight power discount?

The stupidest part is that the reason for all this is ostensibly to increase the share of renewable power in Mass. But if all you are doing is moving power around on the grid from canada to mass, how exactly does that do anything for climate change? If arent building new renewables, you are just changing where the fissile fuel plants need to be built.

Quebec hydro tried running this line threew new hampshire, and we shut that nonsense down. Hopefully Maine does the same.
 

Re: CMP Corridor
« Reply #27 on: October 18, 2021, 01:08:47 PM »

Offline Kernewek

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 572
  • Tommy Points: 43
Quote
BTW: I am interested in the merits of the actual project

As am I.

It's never had much merit outside of the money Hydro-Quebec and CMP stand to gain from it. There was some funding allocated to people for electric heating pumps, I believe. Not sure if it's still in the deal as written now.

It's been a bad idea since they started planning it in 2017 (when it was more commonly known as the NECEC). It remains a bad idea now.
Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time.

But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.