Utility Busted Using Fake Consumer Group To Scuttle Eugene, Oregon’s Environmental Reforms

from the fake-plastic-trees dept

Back in 2016, we noted how Florida utilities had resorted to creating fake consumer groups to try and scuttle legislation aimed at ramping up solar competition and adoption in the state. The tactic is generally used to create the illusion of support for shitty, anti-competitive policies, and it’s been a common tactic in the U.S. broadband industry for as long as I can remember.

Eugene, Oregon recently passed a new city ordinance that would require that all new residential construction in the city be fossil-fuel free (aka: utilizing more efficient heat pumps instead of oil or natural gas furnaces, or installing new electric stoves instead of gas stoves):

“We have seen a lot of evidence … that natural gas does not support healthy air quality for our children,” Councilor Lyndsie Leech told her colleagues just before the vote on February 6. By phasing out fossil fuels in new homes, she said the council was “building the city that we want to see in the future.” Eugene’s mayor signed the ban shortly after it passed, and it is expected to go into effect in June.

An estimated 90 counties or cities have pursued similar efforts. Unsurprisingly, traditional utilities aren’t exactly keen on this. But instead of debating the ordinance directly as themselves, gas utilities like NW Natural instead decided to create a fake consumer groups with names such as Eugene Residents for Energy Choice and Eugene for Energy Choice.

The former describes itself as a “group of local Eugene residents,” but that’s, of course, not true. It’s effectively a cutout for local utilities aimed at forcing a vote on the issue:

Eugene Residents for Energy Choice is taking advantage of a petition process that allows ordinances passed by the City Council to be put up for a vote by the public. If a petitioner can collect signatures from 6,460 Eugene residents within 30 days of an ordinance being signed by the mayor, that ordinance can be placed on a ballot referendum and sent to voters on the next election day, so long as it’s more than 90 days away.

“Why not force a vote on it?” sounds reasonable on its face, but it won’t be a fair, democratic fight. Should it make its way to a public vote, utilities trying to kill the ordinance will have a financial and tactical advantage over local environmental activists in “educating” the public via a massive misinformation campaign with an unlimited budget, while also throwing money at local policymakers:

Public records show that NW Natural contributed more than $51,400 to the petition committee just four days after Eugene city councilors passed the electrification policy, followed by another $600,000 less than a week later.

As a result, Eugene’s plan, originally slated to go live in June, won’t go live until this fall, assuming it survives at all. Again, giant utilities might have points to make on these issues, but the choice of trying to make them through fake consumer propaganda groups speaks loudly as to the quality of the argument, and the awareness of these companies’ own credibility.

This is a tactic that’s extremely popular among telecom monopolies fighting community owned and operated broadband networks. Usually under the pretense that taxpayer subsidy-slathered telecom monopolies are just super concerned about taxpayer waste. It often goes hand in hand with massive campaigns to flood regulators with bogus support from fake or dead Americans.

You can tell that nobody has much of an answer for this kind of sleazy bullshit because this is effectively the same tactic we wrote about five years ago in Florida. And it’s the same tactic we’ve written about for decades in telecom. It’s K Street propaganda on demand, designed to convince Americans to root against their best self interests, and it works in scuttling consensus and reform far better than most folks assume.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: nw natural

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Utility Busted Using Fake Consumer Group To Scuttle Eugene, Oregon’s Environmental Reforms”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
73 Comments
wry6read says:

Who turned down the gaslight?

At its core, astroturfing is a very logical – pernicious, but logical – sequitur to advertising, which with very few exceptions is at the core of the notion that “educating” people means lying to them in the most appealing way possible.

On the whole I’ve seen – over 7 decades in the presence of educated, affluent fellow citizens – that more and more Americans are “persuaded” by the superficialities trumpeted in ads over time. Gaslit nation, inconvenient observable facts notwithstanding!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Just because it's astroturf doesn't mean they aren't right.

require that all new residential construction in the city be fossil-fuel free

That is legitimately not possible and it’s a dumb thing to try. Even if you make it all electric, the electric grid is still mostly fossil fuel powered, and an electric grid that doesn’t have fossil fuel is actually only possible with nuclear power.

Most environmentalists are dumbasses who don’t understand the science, at all.

Also weren’t you kids trying to claim there was no war on gas stoves?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Learn some engineering before making pronouncements like the one above.

Add in solar, wind and water power to the grid and use all electric housing and the total fossil fuel burn goes way down. Never mind that a power station is way more efficient use of fuel that burning it in a distributed fashion in thousands of houses.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

Learn some engineering before making pronouncements like the one above.

Lol I have a physics degree and took a great deal of engineering classes.

Add in solar, wind and water power to the grid and use all electric housing and the total fossil fuel burn goes way down.

The west coast is already hitting the limits of that. It’s just not workable and can NEVER account for the whole grid.

Never mind that a power station is way more efficient use of fuel that burning it in a distributed fashion in thousands of houses.

Actually incorrect. For generating electricity, sure, but not for heating. The “waste” in generating electricity is heat.

For furnaces “efficiency” is really just measuring how well they burn fuel, or how much of the potential energy is extracted. (usually 80% to 95%) Essentially 100% of that extracted energy becomes heat in the home.

For a generator you have the same fuel burned and then it’s a question of what percentage of that extracted energy is turned into electricity….it varies but it’s like 50, maybe 60% at the high end. Then you have transmission losses and then whatever form of electric heat you use (either heat pump or just a heating element)

This is WHY we generate electricity remotely but most homes burn their own fuel for heating (and sometimes cooking, but that’s a very small cost by comparison). It really IS more efficient.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

So what have you accomplished with this education?

I’m sorry, is this a job interview?

So what have you accomplished with this education?

There are hundreds, at least. But something tells me you already are prepared not to accept the sources.

100% Nuclear certainly is possible, tho.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Pegr says:

Re: Re: Re:2 You first

And by you, I mean the city of Eugene should show that they made appropriate consideration of their plan, including economics, energy delivery, forecasts of the market, etc.

The biggest consideration first is whether or not they can legally make such legal mandates to begin with. They are restricting an already regulated market. Can they do so legally?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Except heat pumps are still better

Heat pumps are fine if you’re discounting inefficiency in the generation of energy but you can’t. Most estimates also talk just about electrical use but not the cost and repair of the device itself. (they’re really just an AC in reverse, so there’s a lot of moving parts and pressurized gas. Resistive heating elements are nothing if not simple.)

are you arguing to shut down electrical generation wholesale

Don’t know where you got that from, merely pointing out that you can’t power the grid solely based on “renewables” (unless you count nuclear, which no one does).

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

electrical use… the cost and repair of the device itself.

In my area of Canada, it’s common for builders to stick buyers with rental water heater contracts. They seem to expect buyers to be ignorant of ongoing costs and repair/replacement costs. (A relative described the rental positively because they “don’t have to worry” about repair or replacement, which suggests they have no idea how much either costs—they’d paid at least 5 times the purchase cost before theirs broke.)

So, as soon as heat pumps are cheaper than gas appliances in new construction, builders are gonna start using them, and patting themselves on the back for being “environmentally conscious”. Instead of limited bans (excluding midrise, highrise, all non-residential, and existing buildings), cities might be better off just charging a few thousand dollars for interior gas infrastructure permits. Maybe even those relating to replacements.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Honestly not sure which way you’re trying to aim that accusation but several municipalities HAVE banned gas stoves in new buildings, and the FTC most definitely “floated a trial ban” on the issue of attempting to ban them nationally.

It got shot down in hilarious fashion but it was very real.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

the FTC most definitely “floated a trial ban” on the issue of attempting to ban them nationally

What you’re forgetting is that any theoretical ban would’ve only applied to new stoves being sold in stores, not to any stove already installed in someone’s house. But the GOP worked everyone into a 2A-like frenzy about “they’re coming to rip your stove out of your home” and…well, the rest is history.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:4

What you’re forgetting is that any theoretical ban would’ve only applied to new stoves being sold

I’m not no? THAT IS ALSO BAD.

This is a really dumb strawman. “They’re not going to rip your gas stove out of your kitchen in front of your screaming children, you dumb GOP!!!”

Bitch, no one said they were going to. It’s still bad.

Fuck you and your strawman, dude. (Politicians do occasionally talk of confiscating guns, btw, so I think it’s hilarious that was your go to)

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

Unless it’s a closed grid (which nowhere in the US is, except for TX) the power is fungible. So saying “they get all their power from X plant” is kinda meaningless. It’s also pointless. Enviros usually want to REDUCE hydro power, not expand it, and the supply is fixed or shrinking. We can’t fill the grid from wind and solar. Any additional power required to replace home furnaces, yeah, it’s coming from fossil fuels.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Irrelevant. This is about reducing fossil fuels, not satisfying every single environmentalist.

Well, no it isn’t, it’s about trendy group think. There isn’t even any Value in reducing the use of fossil fuels.

But hydro power being dcreased at the demand of envrios is super fucking relevant, as is the fact they resis nuclear power, cuz it means all new electrical demands will be supplied by…fossil fuels.

HOW ARE YOU THIS FUCKING DUMB, BAR WEISS? It is legitimately maddening. You’re too aspergers to be an elaborate troll.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:4

  1. Models have no been predictive. (no, not even that one article that tells you they’ve been predictive but they backfit the data after fudging variables)
  2. Co2 emissions in the US have been going down for decades. But it doesn’t matter cuz China is building a new coal plant every 5 min (no not really but it’s a lot). It just doesn’t matter, global (human) emissions will go up.

Actual pollution from natural gas is miniscule.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Well, no it isn’t, it’s about trendy group think.

No, it’s about fossil fuels. Just because a trendy group is also against fossil fuels doesn’t mean that this isn’t about fossil fuels.

There isn’t even any Value in reducing the use of fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels are nonrenewable, which is inherently a problem, and they also produce pollution that can affect air or even water quality. That’s not even including climate change, but I really don’t feel like arguing about that.

Suffice to say that there is definitely at least aome value in reducing the use of fossil fuels. Whether you consider it sufficient value to justify anything in particular is irrelevant to whether or not it has any value.

But hydro power being dcreased at the demand of envrios is super fucking relevant, as is the fact they resis nuclear power, cuz it means all new electrical demands will be supplied by…fossil fuels.

We’re talking about somewhere that gets most of its electric power from hydroelectric dams. We also aren’t talking about what environmentalists want but what is currently available in the area. Assuming that the local government will follow the environmentalists’ lead on this, and that these specific environmentalists are the same ones who oppose both hydroelectric dams and nuclear plants, is just speculation at this point. For all we know, the local government could have more sense than the more absurd environmentalists and realize that any additional energy needs should be met with non-fossil-fuel-based power plants.

If you have evidence that the people in charge of making these decisions have such absurd views, then you might have a point, but in that case, you would need to provide evidence to support such a claim.

HOW ARE YOU THIS FUCKING DUMB, BAR WEISS?

Who is Bar Weiss, and why are you shouting at them? Are they Bari Weiss’s significant other?

But no, I’m not dumb. I’m just pointing out that you’re missing the point being made.

You’re too aspergers to be an elaborate troll.

Why yes, I do have autism (on the high-functioning end of the spectrum), and no, I’m not an elaborate troll. It’s worth noting that having autism doesn’t make one intellectually dumb, but it does tend to impede one’s ability to increase social intelligence and such, and we can come across as less intelligent than we actually are.

It’s also a significant part of why I had never heard of Bari Weiss until it got brought up in a discussion you were having, why I never heard of OJ Simpson or Michael Jackson until they were on trial, and, really, why there are a lot of famous people I don’t know or who I hadn’t heard of until unusually late in my life. And it’s part of what gives me difficulty remembering names much of the time. Does that clear things up for you?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I very much do not lime PETA’s stupud ad campaigns. They are extremely loud and insensitive and if left alone, the organization would be laughed out of existence.

Unfortunately, PETA also does work like exposing certain factory farm activities.

And there’s also a big fucking “consumer group” as well that specifically was made to counter the good PETA does.

Astroturfing is sadly a very “conservative” tactic.

fairuse (profile) says:

Oregon?

Now that I stopped giggling.

  1. Heat Pump – The amount of tine “heating element” is on = $$$ bill.
  2. Wife says, Gas stove/ oven vented outdoors is no brainer. Electric stove makes her crazy.

{home heated by plain old #2 Auto fired furnace was low cost until 2022/2023 when Biden went “no more oil”.

It’s all politics and idiocy driven.

tress burn… /bad joke

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Ididthat says:

Re:

Do you have an “I Did That” sticker?

It would be humorous to create a huge ‘everything’ control panel with dials that go to eleven, give it to Biden so he can twist those knobs raising gasoline prices, natural gas, unnatural gas, ass gas, and everything else gas.

Think I’ll pass .. the gas

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Gas stove/ oven vented outdoors is no brainer. Electric stove makes her crazy.

While few people who’ve used gas stoves enjoy switching to resistive electric, I’ve heard good things about inductive electric stoves. Any high-heat frying will need strong ventilation—of course to the outdoors—and possibly make-up air.

(It’s a little weird to have a strong preference for a gas oven. They’re usually considered worse than electric, and most can’t work with the power out anyway. A lot of gas stoves include electric ovens.)

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

I still don’t think serious cooks like it as much as gas.

That’s true. It’s not obvious whether that’s because they’re unfamiliar with it, or because it’s worse (and if so, how much worse?). Maybe it’s good enough.

The cookware thing isn’t a huge deal. Woks are almost invariably carbon steel or cast iron, and both work well, as does stainless steel. It’s really just cheap aluminium and copper that won’t work; the more expensive ones have multi-layer bases for induction-compatibility.

It doesn’t matter, there’s no reason to ban gas.

It’s debatable whether the reasons are good enough to justify a ban, but there are reasons and they’ve been stated. Maybe increasing the price of gas to account for pollution cleanup might make more sense. And maybe stoves should be excluded. Everyone I know who has a gas stove had it specially installed to replace an electric one, and is fanatical about it. (Whereas with furnaces, nobody really cares other than the costs and availability, and governments would do better to focus on that.)

Protecting children from the fumes of their parents’ gas stoves does stand out as a bullshit reason. The type of cooking for which people want gas produces harmful fumes all by itself, and updating building ventilation requirements will do more for indoor air quality (from both sources). Outdoor air quality, in terms of human health, isn’t much impacted by natural gas as far as I know. (The harm is more to the environment, and much of that happens at the site of production.)

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

The cookware thing isn’t a huge deal. Woks are almost invariably carbon steel or cast iron, and both work well, as does stainless steel.

Actually, no. They don’t work well because they’re curved and thus little of the metal is close enough to the field. Also, btw, nearly all stainless steels are non-magnetic. You need a flat bottom of basically only “normal” steel or cast iron. So yea, special cookware.

The people who use woks routinely insist basically only an open flame (meaning gas in the modern world).

Protecting children from the fumes of their parents’ gas stoves does stand out as a bullshit reason.

It’s not just bullshit, it was completely made up. Like seriously, they made a bullshit study in a small space with no ventilation.

(The harm is more to the environment, and much of that happens at the site of production.)

For reasons I listed above the CO2 impact is actually less with a gas stove.

Anathema Device (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

“nearly all stainless steels are non-magnetic. You need a flat bottom of basically only “normal” steel or cast iron. So yea, special cookware.”

So special you can only buy induction-safe cookware in IKEA and everywhere else for the same price as or less than the other kind.

When we switched to induction, we had to get rid of a couple of rarely used pots, and that was it. All the other cookware we already owned, worked just fine.

Lying again, Matthew.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:4

So special you can only buy induction-safe cookware in IKEA and everywhere else for the same price as or less than the other kind.

I think this is funny cuz you think you thought this was an insightful thing to say.

When we switched to induction, we had to get rid of a couple of rarely used pots, and that was it. All the other cookware we already owned, worked just fine.

Anecdotes, you maybe unaware, are not data.

It would be about half of what I have. SO? SO FUCKING WHAT?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:

Once you’ve used an inductive hob/stove, you will never go back. I used to love gas – but the induction hob we have now is just amazing. Fast, efficient, clean, and much safer.

So all those professional chefs are wrong? That’s nice for you, I have nothing against you using an induction stove top, if you want to. The fucked up thing is you wanting to decide what other people should use. (fun fact: Electric stoves apparently cause way more fires than gas stoves)

People who praise gas hobs have no idea what they are talking about if they diss induction.

According to the ancient rules of liberal combat, you are literally racist for claiming this.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/can-you-cook-in-a-wok-without-a-gas-stove-asian-americans-are-having-a-heated-debate-11675206484

Anonymous Coward says:

when it is discovered that false groups were those used to stop something being passed into law, be it telecoms fossil fuel supply/use or any other industry, there should be prosecutions flyin around all over the place! this should be even more so when it’s the health of people and the environment that is put in jeopardy! why is it that the USA thinks whatever it wants to do, it can do, regardless of the after effects? when those on the planet as a whole are doing whatever can be done to preserve it, our way of life and that of as many other species as possible, for as long as possible, before we emigrate to Mars and fuck that up, why does the USA thgink it doesn’t need to do the same? is it more important to continue to make a fortune when the place to spend it is disappearing as fast as it is? wake up for god’s sake!!

Anonymous Coward says:

require that all new residential construction in the city be fossil-fuel free

Here’s the actual law (PDF). The relevant line is “Fossil fuel infrastructure is prohibited in a low-rise residential building that has never before been used or occupied for any purpose”, but “fossil-fuel infrastructure” is defined such that it only applies to internal infrastructure that feeds appliances. “Appliance” is not defined, and while I’ve never heard of anyone calling a furnace or full-home water heater an “appliance”, an internet search suggests that some people disagree; I don’t know how the term would be interpreted in Eugene.

Anyway, there’s no requirement to be “fossil-fuel free”, as the infrastructure is only prohibited within a building. Pipes outside a building are not banned, which means this ordinance does not affect generators or barbeques. Or any heating system located outside, which is currently rare in small residential construction but common in commercial and apartment buildings (my mid-rise apartment building has fully external gas infrastructure feeding the rooftop water heater and HVAC system). I wonder whether it would make financial sense for builders to put furnaces and water heaters outside or in non-residential outbuildings. It wouldn’t be too hard to run hydronic piping from either, and buyers like to have sheds anyway.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

A reminder that CA tried to relabel bees as “fish” recently. In court, with a straight face.

Hey, sometimes it works. The US Supreme Court once declared the tomato a vegetable (a definition that still stands, despite it being a fruit in pretty much every other country). If lawmakers use terms without defining them, presumably because “everyone knows” what they mean, they’re eventually gonna be surprised.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:

The vegetable vs fruit thing is a super dumb example. “Furit” only has a specific meaning in a scientific context, and “vegetable” is a pretty fuzzy word up to interpretation. Wheat is a “fruit” but also you should never call it that. Something can be both a fruit and a vegetable.

Also pretty sure the whole “tomato is a vegetable” thing definitely didn’t start with SCTOUS, nor why most people think of it that way.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

“Furit” only has a specific meaning in a scientific context, and “vegetable” is a pretty fuzzy word up to interpretation.

It’s interesting to hear that “vegetable” is up to interpretation, whereas I get the impression most people consider “fruit” and “vegetable” to be separate and scientific categories—even “opposites”. It seems you may be right. But even most government dietary advice (certainly the US “food pyramid” and “myplate”) has always supported the apparently incorrect “disjoint” view, having bright lines between the categories, separate daily requirements for each, and no prominent definitions for any (except that “myplate” says, without explanation, that “potatoes don’t count” as a vegetable—what??). What’s the relevant nutritional factor that determines whether one should count something toward one’s daily quota of X number of vegetables, Y number of fruits, or possibly nothing as with potatoes?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re:

That’s because, when the legislature decided to add invertebrates to the law that determined what their Fish & Wildlife regulation agency could regulate, they had the brilliant idea to just add invertebrates to the definition of “fish” rather than add it to the list of things (like mammals and birds) that could be regulated.

In their defense, the definition already included things like mollusks, crustaceans, and a number of other things that no sane person would call a fish, so it was already really weird.

Still, the fact is that, as written, the definition for “fish” under that particular law does explicitly include invertebrates, and bees are inarguably invertebrates, so for the purposes of that law, bees are technically fish by that definition. And, indeed, CA won that argument in court.

So yeah, the argument itself isn’t silly in context. What’s silly is the way the law was written.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:

That’s because, when the legislature decided to add invertebrates to the law that determined what their Fish & Wildlife regulation agency could regulate,

No, you fucking moron, it meant fish. Now, part of a sometimes used (nearly biblical) definition of “fish”, marine invertebrates (like clams)) would sometimes be included, essentially it would be termed to mean “seafood”. It absolutely did not in any fucking way be meant to refer to fucking bugs.

Many years later some people WANTED it to apply to bees, but they lost, cuz it doesn’t.

Jesus fuck, I brought it up, how do you think I’m not familiar with the case?

Mr. Bar Weiss, HOW ARE YOU THIS FUCKING DUMB?

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

California Fish & Game Code §45 states as follows:

“Fish” means a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals.

That’s literally what the statute says. And even before this case (and before the statute was updated to add “invertebrates” to the definition), they added a terrestrial snail to the list of endangered species, and since the legislature didn’t modify the law to prevent that afterwards, it seems the legislature didn’t exclusively mean marine mollusks in the definition. (See this for more information about the crazy legislative history.)

And as for losing, not according to this or this. The first is the California Court of Appeals decision in favor of CA, the second is the California Supreme Court declining to hear the case. Unless it got to the US Supreme Court or something really weird happened, that would typically be the end of it.

Do you have evidence of later developments that went against the state? If so, I’d be happy to retract my claim. As it is, though, I definitely know what I’m talking about here.

As for you bringing it up, I would have guessed that either you only saw the headlines and thought it funny or only saw the lower court’s decision before it got appealed. But then, I’m not a mind-reader.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:3

“Fish” means a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals.

Dumbass, I KNOW.

the second is the California Supreme Court declining to hear the case.

Well, that’s sad, judicial activism for the win.

They effectively rewrote the statue for political reasons. This is how countries fall.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

No, they didn’t. Nothing in the plain language of the definition in the statute says that fish are necessarily marine animals, regardless of how nonsensical it is. Additionally, there was precedent for including non-marine animals in the fish category for this statute dating back to 1980 (when a terrestrial snail was determined to be a fish under the statute without objection, while a butterfly was rejected as it wasn’t a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, or amphibian), and the language about “invertebrates” wasn’t added until 1982.

So no, this wasn’t judicial activism. It was based on the absurd wording of the statute in question and its history.

Really, the main issue is that the statute is worded really oddly. They shouldn’t have been just tacking on every new category of animal they wanted to include to the definition of “fish”.

Also, this…

This is how countries fall.

…is just being overdramatic. The reason the CA Supreme Court declined to hear the case was largely because it didn’t believe the case was problematic enough to be worth the time correcting.

Seriously, read the rulings I linked to, or at least the article that talks more about the first one and the legislative history that I also linked to. It talks all about how wonky statutory definitions can be and how they lead to seemingly absurd rulings on some occasions. It’s very interesting. Heck, there are cases that have interpreted “less” as “more” and “unlawful” as “lawful”, a US Supreme Court case that held that a “sea” doesn’t necessarily contain water, and a relatively recent USSC case that determined that a “fish” is not a “tangible object”. (See (here)[https://www.loweringthebar.net/2022/09/california-supreme-we-dont-think-bees-are-fish.html], which is humorous coverage of the CA Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal, which mentions these cases.) Sometimes, the legislature uses bizarre definitions for certain terms that lead to counterintuitive interpretations. That’s not the end of the nation, nor is it judicial activism.

That aside, you seemed rather certain that the state had lost. You even assumed that I had no idea what I was talking about. Why were you sure that CA had lost? The Court of Appeals decision came last summer (which is when I first learned of it), and the Supreme Court decision came early last fall. It just seems odd to me that you wouldn’t have known about either of those rulings. I’m genuinely curious.

Finally, if I haven’t made it clear already, I really think that the California legislature should revise the statute so it doesn’t lead to such seemingly nonsensical constructions for “fish” like it did here. (Heck, I’m not entirely sure why “fish” is defined in the first place, as everything there could have been moved to the main body of the statute.)

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

If the facts are on your side you just present those facts

Nothing says ‘we have no valid arguments on our side and even we know it’ quite like a company/industry faking public support via bogus ‘consumer advocacy’ groups.

If they had good arguments against the plan that didn’t boil down to ‘this is bad because it will hurt our profits’ they could have just presented those arguments, that they decided to create bogus groups to argue against it shows how weak and/or self-serving their arguments are.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Leave a Reply to Matthew M Bennett Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...