News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision. Parent comment

Re:SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti... by theandrewbailey on Friday January 08, 2016 @08:40AM (#10864716)
I think the best legal action is SolarCity (and others) to sue the State of Nevada over loss of business. Is that possible?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti... by jerf on Friday January 08, 2016 @08:59AM (#10864826)
You want to create a right to not lose business because of government action? Are you sure about that?

You just entirely destroyed the EPA.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti... by DannyBee on Friday January 08, 2016 @09:47AM (#10865167)
Actually, such a right exists in some cases, in particular, if it's found to be a taking.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42635.pdf

Additionally, states generally can't impair existing contracts through legislation due to the contracts clause.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_Clause (mainly because i'm too lazy to write it all up here).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti... by shpx on Friday January 08, 2016 @09:35AM (#10865084)
Isn't this what the TPP does?

> would allow foreign corporations to sue the United States government for actions that undermine their investment “expectations” and hurt their business

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacific-par...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti... by eli on Friday January 08, 2016 @09:21AM (#10864982)
A better argument would be, as the NV consumer advocate asserted, that the way they reduced a previously agreed-upon rate is illegal: http://www.utilitydive.com/news/nevada-regulators-will-consi...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti... by jerf on Friday January 08, 2016 @09:23AM (#10865002)
To be clear, my point is and was that that is a terrible line of argumentation, not that there are no possible good ones.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti... by J_Darnley on Friday January 08, 2016 @09:09AM (#10864897)
It already exists: investor state dispute settlement.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti... by jerf on Friday January 08, 2016 @09:22AM (#10864993)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlem...

While in some sense that corresponds to the words I used (by which I mean, I see why you mention it as relevant), it definitely doesn't come close to applying here, as that is international law.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti... by J_Darnley on Friday January 08, 2016 @09:37AM (#10865096)
You just need to find the right angle to sue someone. That's probably hard for a company without a billion dollars to spend on lawyers.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti... by acheron on Friday January 08, 2016 @09:36AM (#10865086)
You just entirely destroyed the EPA.

Yeah, but there's probably bad consequences to it also.

[ Parent | on HN ]
[deleted]
Re:SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti... by DannyBee on Friday January 08, 2016 @09:48AM (#10865180)
It is in fact, possibly unconstitutional for a state to change laws to impair existing contracts.
[ Parent | on HN ]