In Superior, Wisconsin, the battle over the Nemadji Trail Energy Center (NTEC), a proposed $1 billion natural gas power plant, pits corporate rights, environmentalism, and political agendas against each other. With Mayor Jim Paine leading the opposition, questions arise about his motivations, particularly given his family’s controversial land dealings under the guise of environmental stewardship. Adding to the complexity, the corporations involved have invoked constitutional protections to challenge the city’s actions, highlighting the legal and ethical stakes of the dispute.
The City Blocks the Plant
The Superior City Council effectively derailed NTEC by refusing to set public hearings required for rezoning and land use changes. Proponents, including Minnesota Power and Dairyland Power, argue the plant is critical for transitioning from coal to natural gas, ensuring reliable energy while supporting renewable efforts.
Mayor Paine’s Shift
Mayor Paine, once an NTEC supporter, reversed his position, citing environmental concerns. He claimed the plant would harm the climate, encroach on burial grounds, and fall short of its promised benefits. However, his dramatic about-face has drawn scrutiny, with critics pointing to his history of leveraging environmental arguments to advance politically convenient or personally beneficial outcomes.
Corporate Rights and the Legal Fight
The utilities behind NTEC have filed a claim against the city, asserting due process violations and arbitrary decision-making. Their case highlights the legal rights corporations hold under U.S. constitutional law. The Supreme Court has recognized corporate litigation rights under several amendments, including the First (freedom of speech), Fifth and Fourteenth (due process and equal protection), and Seventh (right to a jury trial). In this case, the corporations argue that the city’s denial of public hearings and failure to engage transparently violated their rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. This is not the first time this accusation has been raised against Mayor Jim Paine, or the City Council.
Environmental Claims in Context
NTEC’s developers emphasize the plant’s potential to reduce regional carbon emissions by nearly 1 million tons annually, replacing coal-based energy. Critics, including Paine, counter that it would still produce 2.7 million tons of greenhouse gases each year, undermining efforts to combat climate change. The debate underscores the tension between short-term energy reliability and long-term environmental goals.
The Family Forest Deal
The mayor’s environmental advocacy becomes murkier when viewed alongside his family’s land dealings. Paine tried to negotiate a deal involving his uncle’s and cousin’s riverfront property, designated a bird sanctuary under a conservation easement. Despite violations—unauthorized homes, driveways, and a barge—the deal would allow his family to maintain their developments while city land was used to smooth over regulatory hurdles.
This pattern raises concerns about Paine’s consistency. While he opposes NTEC as a threat to the environment, he facilitated a resolution for his family that arguably prioritized private interests over public conservation principles.
Legal, Ethical, and Political Fallout
The dispute highlights broader issues beyond energy policy. The corporations’ constitutional claims underscore their right to contest perceived violations of due process and equal protection. Meanwhile, Mayor Paine’s selective environmentalism erodes public trust, casting doubt on whether his opposition to NTEC is rooted in principle or political maneuvering.
The Bigger Picture
The NTEC controversy reveals deep tensions in balancing environmental objectives with economic development. It also raises vital questions about the role of corporate constitutional rights and the responsibilities of public officials. As corporations defend their interests under the Constitution, leaders like Paine must answer for actions that blur the line between public advocacy and private gain. For Superior, transparency, integrity, and equitable governance remain as critical as clean energy in navigating this contentious issue.
