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).
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
You just entirely destroyed the EPA.