corporate greed – Page 3

August 29, 2016August 30, 2016

Providence DHS also experiencing problems

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The letter Heather received a week before her appointment with the Department of Human Services (DHS) warned that not showing up for her scheduled appointment could seriously delay approval of her benefits. Having been recently laid off and in search of work, Heather made sure that she was not only a half hour early, but that her paperwork was in order.

Arriving at the DHS offices in Providence on Elmwood Avenue, she got into the line for those with appointments. The other line, for those without appointments, was longer and moved more slowly. Both lines stretched out of the waiting room.

Conditions in the waiting room, Heather told me, were “miserable.”

“People were standing in lines for hours,” said Heather. “A lot of people were turned away. A lot of them were single mothers. It was hot, and there was not a lot of room to sit. Children were running around, crying and screaming.” She said employees appeared to be overwhelmed and frustrated.

Optimally, DHS provides people in need with access to many services such as Medicaid, SNAP benefits, Rhode Island Works (RIW), Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP), LTSS, General Public Assistance (GPA) and access to various energy assistance programs like HEAP, WAP and HSR.

The delays, Heather was told, were because of the new computer system the DHS was using to approve benefits. The new system was supposed to make things more efficient. Instead, workers at the office were facing too many cases and a new system being rolled out without adequate training.

At a press conference on Thursday, DHS director Melba Depeña Affigne said that changes in staffing and the conversion to the new computer system would have “no impact on clients.” Michael DiBiase, director of the RI Department of Administration called the issues that Heather and others have described as “unfortunate.”

After four hours, Heather got her EBT card and was able to leave the DHS offices by 4:45pm. The waiting room was no less full, most of those waiting would have to return the next day to continue the process.

The new computer system, which has no official name, was supposed to be online in July, and is now slated to be fully operational by mid September. The system is supposed to reduce the amount of time prospective clients spend with social workers and has been billed as an “incredible tool for our workforce” that will “enhance customer service.”

Heather disagrees. The system, she says, is “designed to make you feel like shit about yourself.”

August 29, 2016August 29, 2016

New computer system at DHS hurts clients and social workers

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Melba Depeña Affigne, director of the RI Department of Human Services (DHS), was “surprised to hear [that clients] did not get service” at the Woonsocket DHS offices. The clients in question were referred from the Woonsocket offices to the DHS offices in Pawtucket, a four hour round trip by bus.

Michael DiBiase, director of the RI Department of Administration said, regarding the problems at the Woonsocket branch of the DHS that the “break in service was unfortunate” and will last “hopefully less than a month.”

DiBiase and Affigne were holding a press conference to explain the layoff of 70 DHS employees, mostly social workers, as part a major reorganization of the DHS and the launching of a new computerized eligibility system that is projected to save taxpayers millions.

The laid off social workers, said DiBiase, will have a chance to apply for one of the more than fifty job openings at DCYF (Department of Children, Youth and Families). The layoffs are required, said Affigne, because of a “new staffing model” that will allow DHS to make significant cuts. The new model is “task based” and will not require supervisors trained in social work to manage by “case load.”

I asked Sue Pearlmutter, dean of the Rhode Island College School of Social Work if this means that the DHS is moving away from social workers advocating on behalf of clients and towards data entry technicians assisting clients using the computers.

“That has been my impression,” said Pearlmutter. The DHS is moving towards “a very different kind of process. Social workers engage with the client and work with the client.” The application process DHS is instituting makes “people take responsibility for their application at a kiosk or in a library.”

Often, these are “people in crisis” at a time when “completing an application is a daunting process.” Some adults and young adults, says Pearlmutter, “may find the process overwhelming. Removing a level of staff may cause more problems for people facing crisis.”

As for the staff DHS is cutting, saying that there are openings at DCYF is disingenuous. Many of the staff losing their positions at DHS started at DCYF, said Pearlmutter. They took jobs at DHS “because the work at DCYF is so crisis oriented. It’s difficult and emotional work that many found they couldn’t do any more.”

Talking about the jobs at DCYF as being like the work at DHS “shows no understanding of the kind of work social work is,” says Pearlmutter.

The new computer system, which has no official name, it’s just the “New Integrated Eligibility System,” said Affigne, was supposed to be online in July, and is now slated to be operational in mid September. The system will reduce the amount of time prospective clients will spend with social workers. This is “by far the largest technology project that has ever been undertaken by the State of Rhode Island,” said DiBiase.

The new computer system, said Affigne, is an “incredible tool for our workforce” that will “enhance customer service.”

Lucie Burdick, president of Local 580 of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), disagrees. She told RI Future that “this extremely expensive computer system, if it even works correctly someday, will never provide the quality of service a trained, educated, experienced human being provides. The computer pilot program is failing miserably at this point and costs are rising rapidly. It could have been done better and cheaper. The displacement of staff and the cost of human suffering that it has exacted on the population we serve is unconscionable.

“This fiasco is the 38 Studios of human services. The taxpayers and advocates for the poor should be outraged.”

DHS provides people in need with access to many services such as Medicaid, SNAP benefits, Rhode Island Works (RIW), Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP), LTSS, General Public Assistance (GPA) and access to various energy assistance programs like HEAP, WAP and HSR. Affigne said that about one in five Rhode Islanders use services offered at the DHS, and that they maintain six field offices, like the one in Woonsocket.

“What will be the impact on clients?” I asked.

Affigne replied, “There will be no impact on clients.”

Yet existing clients did not start receiving notifications of reduced services in Woonsocket until August 23, and the Woonsocket DHS began reduced services on the 19th. That’s two or thee days of people arriving at the Woonsocket offices and learning that they were in for a four hour bus ride to Pawtucket from a sign taped to the door.

As Bob Plain and I tried to ask questions to get to the heart of the issue of the actual impact that this transition will have on people trying to access needed state services, Kristin Gourlay, health care reporter for RIPR cut in.

“Presumably,” said Gourlay, “in September, when the system goes live, people won’t have to go to a field office, they can go to- if the have a computer at home they can use that, they could go to a public library and use a computer there or another social service agency…”

“Correct,” said Affigne.

This allowed DiBiase and Affigne to shrug off concerns about social workers and clients as mere “bumps” along the way towards an improved, (read: cheaper) system. Yet, at a time when poverty and income inequality are at all time highs, and the economy of Rhode Island is barely improving, “bumps” in the lives of the one in five Rhode Islanders applying for needed assistance can be catastrophic.

Here’s the video of RIFuture’s questions:

Here’s the video of the full press conference:

August 26, 2016August 26, 2016

Environmentalists hail Elorza’s stance on LNG

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Environmental Justice League of Rhode Island (EJLRI) “is thrilled that Mayor Jorge Elorza listened to the community and is taking a strong stand against fracking, climate change, and LNG production in Providence.”

The EJLRI statement comes in response to Elorza’s announcement that he opposes National Grid‘s proposed LNG liquefaction facility to be located at Fields Point in the Port of Providence.

State Representative Aaron Regunberg, who represents the 4th district in Providence, also hailed the mayor’s announcement. “I am so glad the mayor has joined our opposition to this terrible proposal. It shows the LNG facility is not a done deal. This is a fight we can win, and so it is a fight we must win. Now it’s time for our federal delegation, who I know are all committed to fighting climate change, to put that commitment into practice here in Providence and join our push for #NoLNGinPVD!”

EJLRI echoed Regunberg’s call for more state elected officials to join them in the fight against expanding LNG infrastructure in Rhode Island. “We are very thankful for the support and climate leadership from our mayor and state legislators, and we now call on our federal congressional delegation and Governor Gina Raimondo to join us and stop National Grid’s plans to liquefy and export fracked gas from Providence.”

Monica Huertas, a leader in the #NoLNGinPVD campaign, responded to the news from the mayor’s office by saying “As a resident of the Washington Park neighborhood, I am so thankful for Mayor Elorza to have so willingly come out against ‘LNG.’ We can make a difference in the smallest state and as residents of the capital city we can take the lead on dismantling the old ways of doing things. This shows that he is on the right side of history. After we have won the battle for clean energy, we can look back at this key moment in Providence and be proud that we fought together.”

Meghan Kallman, Chair of the RI Sierra Club said, “The Sierra Club is pleased with Mayor Elorza’s statement of opposition to the proposed LNG facility in Providence. Climate change is one of the gravest threats that our community faces. Infrastructure such as this liquefaction plant, that locks us into further consumption of fossil fuels, is a bad choice for our future. Further, its proposed location would imperil some of the most vulnerable residents of Providence. We are pleased that Mayor Elorza has listened to the concerns of the community and is opposing this wrongheaded proposal.”

“We have to move to renewable energy,” said Sam Bell, executive director of the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats (RIPDA). “Certain machine politicians may not believe we need to act to stop climate change, but our state cannot afford not to act. Elorza giving in to the people of Providence and supporting the NO LNG in PVD movement is a big win.”

The EJLRI statement concludes, “The decision to approve or reject National Grid’s proposal is still under fast-track review and likely approval in the Washington DC offices of FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Governor Raimondo, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Congressman David Cicilline, and other elected officials need to join their colleagues in Providence and make it clear that there can be no more dangerous fracked gas expansion projects in Providence, or anywhere in the state. We stand by no fracked gas LNG in Providence, no fracked gas power plant in Burrillville, and no fracked gas Access Northeast expansion of the pipeline, compressor station, and additional LNG production.

“Rhode Island is making international news as a climate change leader, and we need to be clear that real climate leaders reject fracking and support a rapid and Just Transition to a sustainable future that centers the needs of workers and frontline communities.”

August 24, 2016August 26, 2016

‘Essentially our advisory opinion means nothing’

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Burrillville Planning Board meeting, held on Monday evening, was a confusing muddle that revealed the structural weaknesses of the “process” that Governor Gina Raimondo implored the people of Burrillville to trust in.

The board was meeting to vote to approve the final version of its required advisory opinion to the EFSB (Energy Facilities Siting Board) concerning Invenergy’s $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant, a scheme that is wildly unpopular with Burrillville residents.

The powerlessness of a small, town appointed board in the face of a multi-billion dollar company with state government support was aptly demonstrated when board chair Jeffrey Partington lamented that “one of the weaknesses of this entire [process] is that we haven’t seen plans” from Invenergy.

The “process” is designed so that a town planning board has to decide to endorse or oppose a plan that will have enormous impact on the town, without seeing the actual plans.

This is by intent.

Conservation Law Foundation attorney Jerry Elmer has pointed out that the process “was designed to take the power to stop a proposal like Invenergy’s out of the hands of the local people… and put it into the hands of the EFSB.”

Hours of meetings and endless discussions have consumed the board’s time and the energy and efforts of local townsfolk. Yet the board’s own attorney, Michael McElroy, succinctly summed it up when he said, “Essentially our advisory opinion means nothing. It’s simply an advisory opinion. The EFSB can take it, they can take it in part, or they can reject it.”

At this meeting we learned that though Invenergy is confident that they can design the power plant to meet the noise ordinances set by the town, they have no intention of posting a bond to insure that this goal is met. An expert hired by the town has said that though he has never seen a power plant meet noise requirements so low and that such a thing has never been done, he believes it might be possible.

“It may be difficult and it may be expensive,” noise expert David Hessler cautioned, adding, “I think it can be done.”

Later in the same meeting Hessler admitted that he had “never seen a power plant meet the noise levels” but reiterated that he thinks this plant can be designed to do so.

Maybe this is why Invenergy won’t post a bond: What bonding company wants to insure a project that may well prove to be impossible? Not agreeing to post a bond may also be a legal strategy. The EFSB, when they decide on the final terms of the deal, might include a bonding that Invenergy agreed to, but more likely the EFSB will simply give Invenergy a waiver on the noise level, allowing the company to disregard Burrillville’s ordinance, without bringing up the bonding issue at all.

Why post a bond to meet a requirement you intend to have waived?

So all the sturm und drang over low octave vs. decibel limits on noise may well be for naught. “Essentially our advisory opinion means nothing,” said McElroy.

Here in Rhode Island we call that, “the process.”

Here’s the full video of the Burrillville Planning Board meeting.

August 23, 2016August 26, 2016

GoLocalProv misses the point, but good try

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Ultimately, the fault is with me, for not being more clear in my writing.

John DeSimone is a lawyer in private practice and he’s House Majority Leader in the RI General Assembly. When he crafts, shapes and votes on legislation, we trust that he will separate his two jobs in his mind. For instance, we trust that he will not allow the fact that he represents restaurant owners who engage in wage theft to shape the way he approaches restaurant and employment law. But in order for voters to be able to judge for themselves whether or not this is happening, they need to understand the kind of cases DeSimone is working on and what side he takes in these cases.

This is partly what I was trying to get at when I wrote about Leader DeSimone’s legal work for Chung Cho, owner of Gourmet Heaven, but there are other distictions to be drawn.

When GoLocalProv reporter and editor Kate Nagle read my piece, she was inspired. She attempted on Jason Knight, who is running in the Democratic primary against conservative Democrat Jan Malik in House District 57. (DeSimone, a conservative Democrat, is facing a challenge to his House seat from progressive Marcia Ranglin-Vassell, so the shape of the politics here becomes obvious.) Nagle wrote that Knight, “has represented DUIs, child pornographers, and sex offender clients since starting his own practice.”

Then she wrote, “The relevance of Knight’s practice and other attorneys running for office derives from a new focus on who candidates are representing in their practices. Last week, incumbent House Majority Leader John DeSimone came under fire for his representation of an accused wage-theft client. The criticism came in part from RI Future‘s Steve Ahlquist, who wrote that voters ‘should know when the people we elect to represent us also defend the monsters who oppress us.’” [spelling corrected]

It’s nice to learn that GoLocal is learning about journalism from closely reading RI Future, but I think they might need a few more lessons. Nagle quotes me in the piece twice, without linking to my writing as I did for her above. (Here’s a handy guide to linking.)

“Voters should know when the people we elect to represent us also defend the monsters who oppress us,” I wrote, “Anybody being sued deserves legal representation, but using slick legal moves to avoid paying workers their earned wages is simply gross.”

Nagle also quoted my tweet about my story, in which I said, ”What attorneys do for their clients should be relevant to how voters perceive their ethical orientation.”

The tweet above was in answer to a criticism from Brandon Bell, director of the RI GOP. Bell tweeted, “As an attorney I am an advocate for client which does not equate with accepting or endorsing client’s alleged wrongdoing.”

In my retort to Bell I was making a subtle distinction. It’s not WHO you represent, it’s WHAT you do for them.

Jason Knight defined the role of a defense attorney very well when he was quoted by Nagle: “…in a criminal case, there’s a judge, a prosecutor and defender, and all three roles need to be done well for a just result. I need a fair judge, and a zealous prosecutor — and a defense attorney who basically keeps the prosecutor honest.”

In my piece about DeSimone, I wrote that DeSimone was not only defending Chung Cho on allegations of wage theft, he was actively helping Cho to sell his business in what the RI Center for Justice called “an attempt to evade liability.” I wrote:

“DeSimone filed Cho’s legal response to the Rhode Island lawsuit on May 11, 2015. About a week later, on May 20, 2015, Cho sold Gourmet Heaven to GSP Corp for half a million dollars. At least some of the transactional paperwork for this sale was prepared by DeSimone.”

This kind of slick legal maneuvering isn’t about keeping the prosecutors honest or achieving a fair trial, it’s about helping a boss to plead poverty and avoid paying workers who, absent wages, were essentially reduced to slavery conditions.

Rather than creating a list of people who committed terrible crimes and attaching them to DeSimone’s name, as Nagle did in her piece about Knight, I wrote a piece outlining the kind of legal maneuvers DeSimone engaged in to protect a wage thief from having to pay his employees.

Perhaps such legal maneuvering is perfectly legal. Perhaps it’s all in line with the professional ethics of being a lawyer. But is it right? And does it call into question DeSimone’s suitability for the elected position he holds?

I’ll let the voters decide.

More pertinent to the discussion at hand, is this what Nagle was attempting in her piece about Knight?

I’ll let the readers decide.

August 22, 2016August 26, 2016

CLF moves to finish off pipeline tariff

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

In response to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision against National Grid’s plan to charge consumers to underwrite and guarantee profits for its proposed ANE pipeline, the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) has moved to close the Docket on a similar proposal here in Rhode Island.

Closing the docket would essentially end National Grid’s plan. According to the motion, National Grid provided testimony in the Massachusetts case claiming that “the fate of the ANE Project is dependent on approvals of full cost-recovery in other New England states—especially Massachusetts, which National Grid assumed would provide a substantial portion of the financing for the proposed project.”

As National Grid further states, “If there is any possibility of less than full cost recovery over the entire term of the contracts, the Proposed Agreement has a negative expected value for the Company’s investors…” National Grid wants to place the risks of this investment on ratepayers, not its investors.

The motion to dismiss, filed by CLF attorneys Jerry Elmer, Megan Herzog and Max Greene, supplies several reasons supporting the contention that Docket 4627 needs to be closed in light of the Massachusetts decision.

The first reason is that the project cannot proceed without Massachusetts. “Massachusetts was to receive the lion’s share—more than 43 percent—of the Access Northeast project’s gas capacity,” says the motion to dismiss, “In effect, Massachusetts’ non-participation cripples the project.”

Even if National Grid decides to proceed with the motion, by deciding to actually assume the financial risks, says the CLF, that isn’t the plan as proposed in Docket 4627. The scheme, says the CLF, “is so substantially altered by [the Massachusetts opinion] that the Petition, as filed, fails to represent fairly the costs and benefits of the ANE Project.”

Without the State of Massachusetts buying in, “The resulting proposition is an entirely new, and raw, deal for Rhode Island. In effect, National Grid is now asking Rhode Island ratepayers to subsidize a project that it alleges will benefit all of New England; yet a substantial share of New England ratepayers—including millions of ratepayers in Massachusetts—will be insulated from bearing a proportional share of the risks of this experimental and uncertain scheme.”

Also, even though the Massachusetts decision was based on Massachusetts state law and has no direct legal bearing on Rhode Island, “the reasoning underlying the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision… applies with equal force here.”

Rhode Island has laws similar to those in Massachusetts regarding “the core principles of electricity market restructuring,” says the CLF, and approving National Grid’s plan “would undermine the main objectives of the [restructuring] act and re-expose ratepayers to the types of financial risks from which the Legislature sought to protect them.”

August 18, 2016August 26, 2016

CLF to PUC: Burrillville plant not needed

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) today presented its arguments against Invenergy’s proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant in a brief filed with the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The PUC is charged with rendering an advisory opinion to the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) the board that will have the final say in whether the proposed plant gets built. In putting together their advisory opinion, the PUC will be considering briefs from the CLF, Invenergy, the Town of Burrillville and the Division of Public Utilities and Carriers (Division).

The PUC’s mandate is to “conduct an investigation … and render an advisory opinion” as to the “need for the proposed facility,” says CLF attorneys Max Greene and Jerry Elmer in their brief, quoting Rhode Island General Laws § 42-98-9(d). The CLF “therefore presented unrefuted evidence that shows the plant is not needed, in the form of testimony from expert witness Robert Fagan.”

Though Invenergy’s expert witnesses “profess to disagree” with Fagan, they argue that the plant will provide a “social surplus” of energy and not that the plant is actually needed, says the CLF in their brief. In the recent ISO-NE forward capacity auction, Invenergy only sold half its capacity. If you subtract out Invenergy’s contribution to the energy markets the region still has nearly 1,000 megawatts of excess capacity, says the CLF.

Further, Invenergy and the Division presented no evidence at the hearings that the plant is needed. Instead, Invenergy made the claim that if the power plant sold energy in an ISO-NE forward capacity auction, this proves the plant must be needed. The CLF argues that this is incorrect, maintaining that “… a CSO is not a showing of need but the result of a complex market mechanism that takes into account other factors such as cost.”

But even if we accept the “CSO equals need” argument, says the CLF, neither Invenergy nor the Division “has presented evidence to show that the proposed Invenergy plant is needed. This is because Invenergy has proposed a two-turbine, 1,000 MW plant but has not obtained a CSO for a two-turbine, 1,000 MW plant.” What Invenergy is defending is a one turbine plant, since that’s what sold at auction.

The PUC must consider the need of the power plant as proposed. What Invenergy has proposed is a two-turbine, 1,000 MW plant. As the CLF brief makes clear, “Invenergy has not obtained a CSO for a two-turbine, 1,000 MW plant,” it has, at best, demonstrated the need for a “485 MW project.”

“Not once does the EFSB Order describe the proposed Invenergy plant under consideration as a single-turbine, 485 MW generator. Instead, the Order says the proposed plant ‘will have a nominal power output at base load of approximately 850-1,000 megawatts” and that the plant will consist of two units. So defined, ‘the proposed facility’ and ‘the Project’ do not have a CSO.”

The PUC’s advisory opinion is due at the EFSB before final hearings start in September. The briefs from all intervenors are due at 4pm today (Thursday).

August 17, 2016August 26, 2016

Court kills pipeline tariff in Mass, RI still considering

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

As the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission considers a request from National Grid to have ratepayers help subsidize a controversial pipeline project, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled against such pipeline tariffs in a decision released Wednesday.

“This is an incredibly important and timely decision,’ said David Ismay, the Conservation Law Foundation’s lead attorney on the case. ‘Today our highest court affirmed Massachusetts’ commitment to an open energy future by rejecting the Baker Administration’s attempt to subsidize to the dying fossil fuel industry. The course of our economy and our energy markets runs counter to the will of multi-billion dollar pipeline companies, and thanks to today’s decision, the government will no longer be able to unfairly and unlawfully tip the scales in their favor.”

The ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court may have an impact on National Grid‘s proposed “pipeline tariff” here in Rhode Island. The Massachusetts court deemed “it unlawful for Massachusetts to force residential electricity customers to subsidize the construction of private gas pipelines, requiring the companies themselves to shoulder the substantial risks of such projects rather than allowing that risk to be placed on hardworking families across the Commonwealth,” according the the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) who brought the case.

The CLF was the plaintiff in the Massachusetts case. The CLF maintained in their motion to intervene in the Rhode Island case that “an electricity distribution company” entering “into a contract for natural gas transportation capacity and storage services” and receiving “cost recovery for its gas contract from electricity ratepayers” is “something that has never occurred in the United States since the Federal Power Act was enacted in 1935, during President Roosevelt’s first term in office.”

Megan Herzog, one of the two lawyers representing the CLF before the RIPUC said in a phone call that the “pipeline is a bad deal for the whole region and that the Massachusetts court affirmed that.” Though the judge ruled on the case using Massachusetts law, there are statutes in Rhode Island that reflect similar principles.

According to Craig S. Altemose, a senior advisor forthe anti-LNG advocacy group 350 Mass for a Better Future, “It is unclear how much this will be a fatal blow to any of Spectra’s proposed projects, but we have absolutely undercut their financing (to the tune of $3 billion), called into question similar pipeline tax proposals in other states, [italics added] and have given Spectra’s investors greater reason for pause. Either way, we have unambiguously won a victory that the people’s money should be not used for private projects that further commit us to climate catastrophe.”

“Today’s decision reinforces what we already know: it’s not in the public interest to subsidize new fossil fuel infrastructure. It deals a serious blow to companies like Spectra who wanted to subsidize their risky projects with handouts from ratepayers. Communities facing an onslaught of fracked gas projects in their backyards like those in Burrillville have good reason to feel hopeful right now. We urge Governor [Gina] Raimondo and the Rhode Island PUC to follow the lead of Massachusetts and reject the pipeline tax,” Ben Weilerstein, Rhode Island community organizer with Toxics Action Center said.

Though the ruling in Massachusetts has no statutory value in Rhode Island, it may establish some lines of legal reasoning that will be helpful as the Rhode Island Public Utilities (RIPUC) Commission decides on Docket 4267, the Rhode Island part of National Grid’s ambitious plan to charge electrical ratepayers not only for pipeline infrastructure investments, but also to guarantee the company’s profits as they do so.

National Grid responded with the following statement: “This is a disappointing setback for the project, which is designed to help secure New England’s clean energy future, ensure the reliability of the electricity system, and most importantly, save customers more than $1 billion annually on their electricity bills. We will explore our options for a potential path forward with Access Northeast and pursue a balanced portfolio of solutions to provide the clean, reliable, and secure energy our customers deserve. While natural gas remains a key component in helping to secure New England’s long-term energy future, the recently passed clean energy bill also presents a welcomed opportunity to support the development of large-scale clean energy, such as hydro and wind.”

Yesterday The RIPUC held a hearing on Docket 4627, asking National Grid to explain why it used such a “broad brush” in redacting information in its application. In the meeting announcement it was said that RIPUC Chair Margaret Curran thought “it is not intuitively clear how the information redacted falls within the exception to the Access to Public Records Act.” Much of what National Grid argues that much of what it wants to keep secret falls into the category of trade secrets, and releasing the information would put it at an unfair disadvantage with competitors, such as NextEra Energy Resources, LLC (NextEra).

As pointed out previously, National Grid will not release how much money ratepayers will be on the hook for if this idea is approved by the RIPUC.

Here’s full video of the hearing:

NextEra brought a separate motion to allow its lawyers access to highly confidential parts of National Grid’s application.

Here’s the full video of that hearing:

The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) released the following statement today in response to the favorable decision from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Conservation Law Foundation v. Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU):

‘This is an incredibly important and timely decision,’ said David Ismay, CLF’s lead attorney on the case. ‘Today our highest court affirmed Massachusetts’ commitment to an open energy future by rejecting the Baker Administration’s attempt to subsidize to the dying fossil fuel industry. The course of our economy and our energy markets runs counter to the will of multi-billion dollar pipeline companies, and thanks to today’s decision, the government will no longer be able to unfairly and unlawfully tip the scales in their favor.’

According to the opinion by Justice Cordy, DPU’s 2015 rule (“Order 15-37”) allowing Massachusetts electric customers to be charged for the construction of interstate gas pipelines is prohibited by the plain languages of statutes that have been the law of the land in Massachusetts for almost two decades.

In his opinion, Justice Cordy wrote, Order 15-37 is ‘invalid in light of the statutory language and purpose of G. L. c. 164, § 94A, as amended by the restructuring act, because, among other things, it would undermine the main objectives of the act and reexpose ratepayers to the types of financial risks from which the Legislature sought to protect them.’

August 15, 2016August 26, 2016

Leader DeSimone’s legal skills help wage thief

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

House Majority Leader John DeSimone is also a lawyer and one of his clients is Chung Cho, a restaurant owner who was fined for wage theft in Connecticut and, more recently, faces a lawsuit for allegedly stealing wages from his employees at Gourmet Heaven in downtown Providence.

“Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny that plaintiffs were employed by Gourmet Heaven,” wrote DeSimone in a court filing on behalf of Cho.

Cho is facing a lawsuit from eight workers in Rhode Island for unpaid wages in violation of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the Rhode Island Minimum Wage Act. The eight workers are being represented by Robert McCreanor and Marissa Janton of the RI Center for Justice. Gourmet Heaven, which Cho recently sold, has been the center of several public demonstrations.

In Connecticut, Cho was charged with “42 felony and misdemeanor counts of wage theft, larceny, and defrauding immigrant workers after a 2013 Connecticut Department of Labor investigation found that Cho owed over $218,000 in unpaid wages” to two dozen restaurant employees, according to a court filing.

The Center for Justice initially filed its lawsuit in February, 2015, after “several requests for extension of the deadline for filing responsive pleadings”. DeSimone filed Cho’s legal response to the Rhode Island lawsuit on May 11, 2015. About a week later, on May 20, 2015, Cho sold Gourmet Heaven to GSP Corp for half a million dollars. At least some of the transactional paperwork for this sale was prepared by DeSimone.

GSP Corp had come into existence about a month earlier, on April 9, “listing 173
Weybosset Street … as its address and Dae Hyun Yoo as its registered agent,” according to the lawsuit. Gourmet Heaven was incorporated at this address, which is also where the restaurant is located. “Dae Hyun Yoo (aka David Yoo) is the Chief Executive Officer of B.C.S. International Corporation (B.C.S.), a wholesale food supply company,” according to the filing. “While operating Gourmet Heaven, LLC, Defendant Chung Cho regularly ordered inventory from B.C.S. and two of its subsidiaries, Hyun Dai International Food Corp and New York Cheese Corp.”

After the sale was finalized on September 14, “$225,389.11 of the $500,000 purchase price was paid directly to B.C.S., Hyun Dai International Food Corp, and New York Cheese Corp, purportedly to satisfy existing debts.” In the closing statement, Chung Cho is listed as receiving only “$1,620.78 from the $500,000 purchase price” after other debts were settled.

In response to this “sale” (quotation marks are included in the complaint) the Center for Justice amended its complaint to include GSP Corp as a defendant., believing the “sale” is merely an attempt to evade liability. GSP Corp hired Brian LaPlante and Michael J Jacobs as lawyers and have moved to have the complaint against them dismissed. A judge will hear the motion on September 20.

Selling the business and pleading poverty to avoid responsibility seems to be Cho’s signature move. One month after he was arrested in Connecticut, he sold his Connecticut Gourmet Heaven stores to Good Nature Café Inc, which was incorporated the previous October.

After selling his Connecticut stores, “on September 30, 2015 Defendant Chung Cho filed for personal bankruptcy in Connecticut,” says the complaint, “In December of 2015 Defendant Chung Cho testified at a hearing in Connecticut that he has no assets, contradicting a previous sworn statement that he possessed between $1 million and $10 million in assets.”

Back in Providence, on September 16, 2015, GSP Corp took over operation of the store located at 173 Weybosset Street, and renamed it Serendipity Gourmet. “The store continues operation at the same address, with many of the same employees, and sells the same products. The signage on the store uses the same font and colors, and the word ‘Gourmet’ still appears in the name. Signs on the exterior of the store proclaimed that it was ‘under new management.’”

In March of this year, GSP Corp applied for a new food dispenser and holiday sales license with the Providence Board of Licenses for their newly minted Serendipity Gourmet. The board’s attorney is Louis DeSimone, Representative John DeSimone’s cousin.

Voters should know when the people we elect to represent us also defend the monsters who oppress us. Anybody being sued deserves legal representation, but using slick legal moves to avoid paying workers their earned wages is simply gross.

DeSimone is facing a challenge to his House seat from Marcia Ranglin-Vassell.

DeSimone did not respond to requests for comment.

August 11, 2016August 26, 2016

Department of Health hears testimony on Burrillville power plant

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDOH) held a public comment hearing in Burrillville Tuesday to solicit opinions on the potential health effects of building Invenergy‘s proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant. RIDOH has been tasked by the Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) to create a non-binding advisory opinion on potential public health concerns relating to the project, including but not limited to biological responses to power frequency, electric, and magnetic fields associated with the operation of the power plant, and the potential impacts on the quality of drinking water associated with the construction and operation of the plant. The final report is due in early September.

RIDOH has released a first draft of their report, which was consumed by Burrillville residents opposed to the plant. Much of the public comment centered around the idea that RIDOH wasn’t taking into account the compounded effects of the gas infrastructure in and around Burrillville but was instead concentrating on the proposed power plant by itself.

Perhaps the most dramatic moment of the evening came when Stephanie Sloman rose to give her testimony.

“I had a whole speech prepared,” said Sloman (see video #20 below), “but I noticed that Invenergy’s sitting over there, and I refuse to speak and read my speech in front of these people. I don’t think they should even be here, frankly.”

The evening’s meeting was made harder on residents of the town because at the same time as this meeting there was a meeting of the Harrisville Fire District and Water Board. This meant that some people (including me) had to run out to the other meeting and then return to the RIDOH hearing, still in progress.

Several Burrillville residents noted that Governor Gina Raimondo, during her visit to Burrillville in July, recommended that residents get involved in and trust the process. That seems awfully hard to do when two important meetings are scheduled at the same time .

Below is all the video from the event.

August 11, 2016August 26, 2016

Attorney Sinapi denies conflict of interest

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

About a half hour before Tuesday evening’s Harrisville Fire District and Water Board meeting started, attorney Richard Sinapi was engaged in semi-private conversation with board chair Ronald Slocum and vice chair James Scotland Sr inside the meeting place. Sinapi was apparently selling Invenergy’s idea to open a new well in Harrisville to cool its power plant to the commissioners, essentially telling them that Harrisville would lose out on $10 million if they did not accept the deal.

I arrived at the meeting site about a half hour early. Outside was Burrillville resident Robert Woods. Woods is a recently appointed member of the Burrillville Planning Board. An outspoken critic of Invenergy’s $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant, he recently recused himself from planning board business concerning Invenergy out of “an abundance of caution.”

Woods told me he could see inside the building, where Harrisville attorney Richard Sinapi was talking to the chair and vice chair of the Harrisville Water Board. The door to the offices were locked but after knocking, Woods and I were let in. Attorney Sinapi, as seen in the video, was engaged in conversation with two members of the board.

“I don’t know what plan C is, it’s very secret,” said Sinapi, “All I know is that it’s a lot more expensive than the ten million dollars… So… It’s ten million dollars.”

“Gentlemen,” said Robert Woods, “it seems like this is a little out of order, no? The meeting hasn’t started…”

“I’m the attorney, the meeting hasn’t started,” said Sinapi, “and there’s no quorum.”

“I realize that but you shouldn’t…” began Woods, before Sinapi wheeled around on him.

“There’s no quorum, and the meeting hasn’t started yet,” snapped Sinapi, “and I’m the attorney.”

“I realize you’re the attorney,” said Woods, “you’re talking about that to members of the board, I don’t know, I’m not an attorney but it just seems a little out of order to me, that’s all.”

“You’re entitled to your opinion,” said Sinapi.

“That’s why I’m voicing it,” said Woods.

Fifteen minutes later, and about ten minutes before the start of the meeting, Sinapi took another commissioner into an office, where he could be seen speaking privately. What they were talking about is not known.

The laws governing open meetings are complex, but on the face of things, Sinapi seems to be correct. His advocacy on behalf of Invenergy’s proposal does not seem to have violated the Open Meetings Act. Certainly there was no quorum, but if Sinapi was having this conversation with multiple commissioners in small groups over time, it might constitute what is called a “rolling quorum.” But of course, I’m no lawyer.

There are, however, other considerations at play. Many Burrillville residents have told me that they feel that Sinapi should have recused himself, since he is not only the lawyer for Harrisville, he is also the lawyer for the New England Mechanical Contractors Association. In that capacity Sinapi has apparently advocated for Invenergy’s power plant at the State House.

In his capacity as Harrisville’s lawyer, should Sinapi have been advocating for Invenergy’s proposal to the water board? Sinapi says that there is no conflict of interest. I spoke to Sinapi by phone. He maintains that in his capacity speaking for the Mechanical Contractors Association at the State House, he was working to “defeat a bad bill that would be bad for business, not to support or oppose the power plant.”

In his capacity as attorney for Harrisville, Sinapi says his job is to protect the Harrisville water supply and the financial integrity of the water board. If “Invenergy brings water into town, through a pipeline,” said Sinapi, “it could render the Harrisville supply redundant. We provide half the water to Pascoag.”

While he had me on the phone, Sinapi wanted to correct me on two points. I listed the Harrisville Water Board vote against Invenergy’s proposal as 5-1 (and the ProJo reported it as 6-1) but Sinapi claims the vote was 5-2 in favor of turning Invenergy’s offer down.

Sinapi’s other objection to my piece was my contention that a lawyer for the Harrisville Water Board “should have known” more about MTBE than his testimony at the State House seemed to indicate. According to Sinapi, water containing up to 40 parts per million MTBE is acceptable for drinking. In Connecticut, up to 70 parts per million is acceptable. Though MTBE is dangerous, said Sinapi, “it’s not like Benzene or something.”

August 10, 2016August 26, 2016

Invenergy loses bid for Harrisville’s water

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Harrisville Fire District and Water Board voted 5-1 to turn down Invenergy’s offer to purchase water to cool it’s proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant in Burrillville. Thunderous applause broke out in the Assembly Theater, where the meeting had to be held to accommodate the nearly 100 people in attendance.

The road to the no vote was Rhode Island political theater at its finest, with the Harrisville District attorney, Richard Sinapi, taking on the role of villain in the piece.

Sinapi is not only the attorney for Harrisville, he’s also a lobbyist who has testified at the State House in favor of the proposed power plant. He represents the New England Mechanical Contractors Association. In this capacity, on May 25 he testified in favor of the power plant and against Rep. Cale Keable’s bill to give the residents of Burrillville a vote on any tax treaties the Burrillville Town Council might negotiate with Invenergy.

At the House Committee on Environment meeting Sinapi suggested that choosing to purchase a home near an existing pipeline means that one should expect a power plant to be built nearby, just as choosing to live near the airport in Warwick means that one should expect runway expansions and jet noise.

Sinapi also suggested that since we live in a republic, people should not expect a democratic vote on things like power plants being located next door to their homes, they need to understand that their representatives will decide for them, and that they do not have a choice in the matter.

It was on the subject of water, however, where Sinapi made his most egregious comments at the House Environmental meeting in May. “Well 3A has in fact been shut down. It was shut down because it was not suitable for potable purposes. You cannot drink that water. It’s contaminated with MTBEs. However, you can wash with it, you can bath with it. You can’t consume it. That water, that contamination, is 16 years old.”

This is of course completely wrong. MTBE contaminated water cannot be used for washing or bathing, by court order. The water will irritate the skin and there is an unpleasant “sweet smell” to the water as well. Sinapi, a legal advisor to the Harrisville Water Board, should have known this.

At the Harrisville Water Board meeting Tuesday evening, Sinapi presented Invenergy’s pitch to the water board. He said that he and Harrisville became “involuntarily” involved in the Invenergy project after the Burrillville Town Council asked Harrisville to explore the possibility that drawing MTBE contaminated water out of well 3A might spread MTBE contamination throughout the aquifers. Sinapi did not mention his previous involvement as a lobbyist for the New England Mechanical Contractors Association at the meeting.

The offer from Invenergy was to build a pipeline from a well site in Harrisville to the Invenergy power plant site, at Invenergy’s cost. Sinapi presented the idea as an economic boon to Harrisville. The water drawn, said Sinapi, was, “not to exceed the capacity of the well.” Harrisville would receive about $10 million dollars in water sales over the life of the power plant.

Additionally, said Sinapi, if Harrisville did not accept the offer, Invenergy would move on to a “third option” which Sinapi described as more expensive for Invenergy. “I would like to emphasize,” said Sinapi, “they have a third option. It’s not just 3A, they have a third option.”

After Sinapi’s presentation, during the public commentary period, residents of both Harrisville and Pascoag asked, “What is the third option?”

“I’ve been told by two sources that they have a third option,” said Sinapi.

“You made it up, that’s fine,” said someone from the audience.

Under further questioning from Burrillville resident Donna Woods, Sinapi admitted that he has “no idea” what the third option might be.

When Burrillville resident (and candidate for Burrillville Town Council) Jeremy Bailey rose to speak, he said, “I have a an issue right now. Mr. Sinapi was paid $15,000 last year to represent the Mechanics Union, who wants the power plant… That’s a conflict of interest, and none of you [the Harriville Water Board commissioners] seem to be concerned with that… We have a state that’s so corrupt with non-transparency and not a single one of you really has a concern with it.”

No one on the board responded to Bailey’s concerns. Instead, they moved to vote.

The vote was taken, and Invenergy’s proposition to open a new well in Harrisville was turned down, 5-1.

August 9, 2016August 26, 2016

Elorza: No city support for Grid’s LNG project

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

2015-11-30-World-AIDS-Day-006-Jorge-Elorza-600x507 (1) — Jorge Elorza

Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza issued a statement affirming his opposition to public subsidies for National Grid‘s proposed liquefaction facility at Field’s Point in the Port of Providence.

“The City of Providence has a long standing commitment to sustainability that rivals top cities nationally,” said Emily Crowell, press secretary for Mayor Elorza, “With a goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050, we are committed to moving away from fossil fuels and helping combat the global climate crisis. Ultimately, the decision on the LNG plant will be up to the federal government, however the City will provide no subsidies if the project moves forward.” [Emphasis added]

Elorza was strongly encouraged by the Rhode Island Sierra Club to come out against National Grid’s project. Their statement notes that the final decision will be made by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and that the city will have little input into that decision.

August 9, 2016

Noise, air pollution from proposed power plant would ruin Burrillville

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

OER fudges reality and ignores impact of escaping methane—see disclaimer in lower-left corner.

On Tuesday August 9, the Rhode Island Department of health (RIDOH) will hold a hearing on Invenergy’s proposed gigawatt fossil fuel power plant in Burrillville, aka the Clear River Energy Center (CREC). The meeting will start at 5:30 pm at Burrillville HighSchool, 425 East Avenue, Harrisville, Rhode Island 02830.

As part of the process, RIDOH issued an advisory opinion. Even a cursory reading of the document reveals issues so serious that they should prevent the construction of CREC. Yet another Rhode Island administrative body that lacks enthusiasm for the project!

RIDOH identifies serious negative health impacts of noise:

According to the WHO [World Health Organization], sleep disturbance, one of the most common complaints raised by noise-exposed populations, can have a major impact on health and quality of life. People can recognize and react to sounds, even when asleep. Those reactions, including wakening and changes in sleep stage, are associated with daytime after-effects, such as sleepiness, reduced cognitive and motor performance, and impairment of cardiovascular function.

The RIDOH opinion also quotes written testimony of Julia O’Rourke, who lives on Wallum Lake Road in Burrillville:

Specifically, in the past year, I have experienced excessive noise and vibrations coming from the Algonquin Compressor Station site which this project will be located next to. The noise and vibrations emanating from this site are extremely disruptive and negatively impacting our health and we are unable to sleep or enjoy the peace and quiet of our home. I am concerned that the noise levels and vibration are only going to increase during the construction and operational phase of this project.

Clearly, the neighborhood around the CREC site and Spectra Energy’s compressor station will become unlivable. RIDOH suggests, if the plant were to be built, that Spectra Energy and Invenergy install sound proofing and buy “properties subject to noise levels that cause serious annoyance and/or sleep disruption.”

RIDOH’s opinion mentions that questions have also been raised as to whether National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) of the Environmental Protection Agency adequately protect public health. We, and probably others, indeed raised those questions—those and quite a few others—in this public comment. The federal standards fail to account for short-lived pollution spikes which are typical for the operation of compressor stations and power plants. Nitrous oxides are are highly problematic in this respect. In addition, there are lots of other problems with “data” Invenergy’s submitted to the Energy Facility Siting Board.

Sure, we could go ahead with the construction of the power plant and turn Burrillville into a major air pollution dump. Is that justified simply to create a couple of jobs and export electricity to the Northeast? Can we justify that simply because “no states have promulgated a short-term NO₂ standard that is more stringent than the NAAQS and the process for adopting such standards is arduous?”

Interestingly, RIDOH is much more advanced in its understanding of the effect of the proposed power plant than the Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources. RIDOH states:

The burning of fossil fuels and the extraction of fossil fuels by “fracking” both contribute to climate change by emitting various greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, most notably carbon dioxide and methane. Both have the effect of harming the health of Rhode Islanders now and in the future.

Of course, most of the methane problem occurs long before the fracked gas reaches Rhode Island. Information in a recent presentation of Rhode Island’s Office of Energy Resources shows that the office explicitly ignores such effects.

Not only does the office ignore basic science, it is also out of sync with federal guidelines on how the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change should be taken into account. Those guidelines, issued last week, explicitly call for:

Taking into account reasonably foreseeable direct, indirect, and cumulative GHG emissions and climate effects;
Consideration of reasonable alternatives and the short- and long-term effects and benefits in the analysis of alternatives and mitigation

Unless we change course, Rhode Island will be doing neither. RIDOH writes:

We cannot measure the direct contribution of the proposed plant, or of any single facility, to public health by means of climate change.

Sure, but if we forge ahead without understanding what we do, we are in violation of the precautionary principle of the Rio Declaration, an international treaty signed and ratified by the U.S. This is the supreme law of the land:

Principle 15

In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

How about we cannot “measure the direct contribution” of the plant to global warming? True enough, but we can easily estimate the impact of the national policy of which construction of the plant is part. Because natural gas is worse for the climate than oil and coal, the conclusion is simple: given the rate at which natural gas escapes unburned, and before the use of methane starts paying off, we’ll be dead, leaving an uninhabitable planet for future generations.

August 9, 2016

Not enough water for proposed power plant and future growth

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

On August 9, the Harrisville Fire District in its monthly meeting will discuss how to respond to Invenergy’s request for the supply of water for its proposed power plant in Burrillville, the Clear River Energy Center (CREC). For time and place follow this link.

Future water shortages caused by CREC have been a topic of discussion and speculation for many months. That indeed there is a serious risk is clear from information contained in documents obtained from several Rhode Island departments in response to Fossil Free RI‘s request made under the Access to Public Records Act.

As a reminder, the following is worth quoting from a previous post based on documents supplied by the RI Department of Health:

According to a presentation at a meeting about CREC attended by several state agencies, 0.18 MGD (million of gallons of water per day) will be left for growth if the power plant is built. June Swallow of the Center for Drinking Water Quality at the Rhode Island Department of Health attended the meeting. Her longhand notes show that Harrisville and Pascoag each are expected to need 0.12 MGD for growth. This suggests a deficit of 0.24 MGD – 0.18 MGD = 0.06 MGD.

Also documents supplied by the RI Department of Environmental Management raise concern. There is, for example, the following email exchange between Alisa Richardson of RIDEM and Ken Burke formerly of the Rhode Island Water Resources Board:

Thanks Alisa,
I think we should talk about having the Town acknowledge that with low flow conditions and high energy demands, that the Town is effectively pledging most (if not all) of its available water to this development. This local decision is theirs to make. Will someone from the Town also be at this meeting?
Thank you,
Kenneth J. Burke, P.E.MBA
General Manager/Treasurer

This email (my emphasis) appears on page 50 of this document. There is more of interest, but the conclusion is the same; search the document for “Alisa” and “Ken.”

Also Stephanie Sloman, a retired environmental engineer who worked for a large electroplating plant in Massachusetts, weighed in. She submitted a thorough and detailed testimony to the Invenergy docket of the Energy Facility Siting Board.

Her conclusion is that, no matter how you look at it, there is not enough water for future growth in Burrillville and the other towns that draw from the same source.

Clearly, the RI departments of Environmental Management and Health, and the Water Resources Board are aware of the looming water supply problem. As Stephanie Sloman explains, anyone capable of elementary arithmetic can check this. As she points out, Invenergy is apparently is not one of those.

Recently, Gina Raimondo mentioned that she would withdraw her support for the CREC project if there were any issues. Of course, trouble with the water supply is only one of a myriad of issues each single one of which should suffice for her to make good on that promise.

August 8, 2016August 26, 2016

Invenergy power plant facing water problems

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Invenergy’s proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant in Burrillville is running into some water problems. The Pascoag Utility District, at a special meeting called by board chair Al Palmisciano for August 19, will decide for or against allowing Invenergy to access well 3A, which is closed by court order due to MTBE contamination.

A decision in Invenergy’s favor is by no means certain. In fact, Invenergy already seems to be searching for other options. On August 9 the Harrisville Fire District is taking up Invenergy’s, “inquiry as to whether and under what conditions Harrisville would be willing to consider developing and constructing a well and distribution means to supply water to the power plant at Invenergy’s expense.” Invenergy is also asking Harrisville to “authorize such additional pump and water testing and legal research as is necessary to determine the yield, viability and estimated cost of developing a well on the Victory Highway site and constructing an appropriate means of distribution at Invenergy’s expense.”

The Harrisville meeting is taking place at a time that overlaps with the RI Department of Health (RIDOH)’s public commentary hearing at the Burrillville High School, part of the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB)’s process of determining the fate of the power plant. This will have the effect of dividing the potential audience, but over the last few weeks water has become a very big issue in northern Rhode Island because the area is experiencing a severe drought, with rainfall five inches below average.

Aquifers and wells are feeling the effect of the lack of rainfall. Invenergy plans to use an average of 100,000 gallons of water a day to cool their plant, and almost a million gallons a day when burning oil. This is in addition to the 4 million gallons of water used to cool Burillville’s existing power plant, Ocean State Power. This strain on the area’s water supply may be lead to even more severe water shortages in the area. At the very least, it will forestall the possibility of future growth in the area.

Even if both Harrisville and Pascoag deny Invenergy their water, it doesn’t necessarily put an end to the company’s plans. Water could be imported from over state lines, and of course there is always the option used by Ocean State Power. According to a video by Paul Roselli of the Burrillville Land Trust and Burrillville resident Norman Derjarlais, the company seems to be trucking in the water from Western Sand & Gravel, a nearby superfund site, in leaking trucks. From 1975-1979 about 12 acres of this area was used for the disposal of liquid waste, including chemicals and septic waste.

You can watch the video below.

August 8, 2016

Sierra Club statement on National Grid LNG proposal

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Rhode Island Sierra Club strongly praises the bold climate leadership of the nine Providence legislators who publicly expressed their opposition to National Grid’s proposal for a $180 million fracked gas liquefaction facility at Fields Point in the Port of Providence.

Last week, Providence State Representatives Aaron Regunberg, Joe Almeida, Grace Diaz, John Lombardi, Chris Blazejewski and Edie Ajello, along with Providence State Senators Juan Pichardo, Gayle Goldin and Harold Metts submitted a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) describing their deep concerns with National Grid’s proposal. We wholeheartedly agree with their statement that this project represents a boondoggle for ratepayers, an unjustifiable safety risk for the local community, and the kind of unacceptable doubling down on fossil fuel infrastructure that will guarantee we blow past our legally mandated emission reduction goals. And we are proud to see so many legislative leaders refusing to condemn our beautiful state to a future of climate catastrophe.

Unfortunately, the same can not be said of Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza. Rather than making any effort to live up to his rhetoric on climate change, Mayor Elorza has chosen to partner with National Grid and help them advance their proposal with tacit support and active negotiations for a Tax Stabilization Agreement to smooth out the utility’s tax payments over time.

Stopping climate change is the moral crisis of our time – and it will only be possible if we end these vast investments in new fossil fuel infrastructure that guarantee our addiction to fossil fuels continues past our planet’s point of no return. We all need to join in this fight. Rhode Island Sierra Club pledges our support for elected officials who take this moral imperative seriously, like the nine Providence legislators who came out in opposition to the LNG proposal last week. And we condemn in the strongest possible terms the cowardice of self-proclaimed climate leaders who choose to give in to the fossil fuel industry. Mayor Elorza, your actions speak much louder than your words – please, do the right thing and join your legislative delegation in standing up for Providence’s current and future citizens.

August 5, 2016August 26, 2016

National Grid says cost of proposed ratepayer fee is a trade secret

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

National Grid will not reveal the amount of money they hope to charge customers in their proposed pipeline tariff. That information is a trade secret, and will not be revealed until after the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (RIPUC) decides on the proposal.

On Tuesday evening RIPUC heard public testimony against National Grid’s plan to charge customers for its efforts in building fracked gas pipelines and infrastructure in our state. National Grid also wants ratepayers to guarantee their profits for the venture as well. After the hearing I searched in vain through National Grid’s 572 page application for anything that would indicate how much this plan would cost. Finally I wrote Todd Bianco, principal policy associate at RIPUC for clarification.

“I do not believe there are any costs or rates in the filing that have not been redacted and marked as confidential. You should contact National Grid’s attorney or their spokesperson to confirm that,” said Bianco.

Following Bianco’s advice, I wrote to David Graves, National Grid’s Rhode Island Director of Strategic Communications.

“Portions of the filing are redacted because the document includes confidential information,” wrote Graves in an email, “which if revealed, would give competitors an unfair advantage in building their bids. The same procedure is in place in commodity rate setting. The information is shared with the regulators and is used in their assessment of our proposed rates, but the hard numbers in the estimates are not shared publicly until after the contract has been awarded.”

Graves did note that ratepayer impacts are discussed in the application starting on page 545. All the important numbers for determining actual impacts have been redacted.

August 3, 2016

People’s Power and Light opposes National Grid plan

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

On the evening of Tuesday, August 2nd People’s Power & Light testified at the Public Utilities Commission, on behalf of Rhode Island consumers and electric ratepayers, against National Grid’s proposal to recover costs from the proposed Access Northeast natural gas pipeline through an electricity ratepayer tariff.

People’s Power & Light expressed several reasons why the Commission should reject National Grid’s Request for Approval of a Gas Capacity Contract and Cost Recovery, Docket 4627, and instead seek alternative resources to meet the region’s energy demand during peak winter times, such as renewable energy, energy efficiency, storage, and demand response. We expressed disagreement with the unprecedented proposal that electric customers pay for additional natural gas infrastructure. Why should consumers take on the long-term risk of a new, unnecessary natural gas pipeline?

People’s Power & Light’s public and written comments:

As a pro-consumer and pro-environment nonprofit organization, we at People’s Power & Light encourage the Commission to reject National Grid’s Request for Approval of a Gas Capacity Contract and Cost Recovery.

The pipeline tax is an outdated approach that conflicts with the widespread sustainability efforts that Rhode Island is already implementing across sectors.

The 2014 Resilient RI Act sets specific greenhouse gas reduction targets at 80% by 2050, with interim targets of 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 45 percent by 2035. Energy planners have an obligation to implement policies and projects that keep Rhode Island on track to meet those goals. As the Ocean State, we are especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change; building additional natural gas infrastructure sets us back in the wrong direction and will only serve to increase polluting emissions.

When more consumers learn that they could be on the hook for the pipeline expenses, we can expect to hear more voices of opposition. In our neighboring state Massachusetts, legislation was submitted to prohibit the imposition of a pipeline tax on electricity ratepayers; the measure passed the Senate and a strong majority of the House signed a letter expressing support for the prohibition. We anticipate that a similar measure would see success here in Rhode Island if put to a vote in the General Assembly. Local constituents want to see our state reduce fossil fuel consumption cost-effectively and diversify our local energy mix with more efficiency and renewable sources. A new natural gas pipeline puts the long-term risk on ratepayers who do not want the pipeline in the first place. A recent poll conducted by our sister organization Mass Energy Consumers Alliance demonstrated overwhelming support to ban ratepayer financing of the Access Northeast pipeline. By a margin of over two to one (70%-30%), participants preferred alternatives to natural gas pipelines.

We must protect electric customers from being charged for a natural gas pipeline. Thank you for your time and for the opportunity to submit comments.

August 3, 2016August 26, 2016

Providence legislators oppose ‘dangerous’ new LNG development

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

A group of Providence elected officials announced their strong opposition to a proposal by National Grid to develop a new fracked gas liquefaction facility at Fields Point in South Providence. Citing concerns ranging from costs to ratepayers, safety risks and climate impact, the legislators — including Representatives Joseph S. Almeida (D-Dist. 12, Providence), Grace Diaz (D-Dist. 11, Providence), Aaron Regunberg (D-Dist. 4, Providence), Chris Blazejewski (D-Dist. 2, Providence), Edith H. Ajello (D-Dist. 1, Providence) and John J. Lombardi (D-Dist. 8, Providence) and Senators Juan Pichardo (D-Dist. 2, Providence), Gayle Goldin (D-Dist. 3, Providence) and Sen. Harold M. Metts (D-Dist. 6, Providence) — called on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to reject National Grid’s application, and warned the City of Providence against signing a tax stabilization agreement with the utility to facilitate the project.

Last summer, National Grid submitted a proposal to FERC to develop a $180 million facility to produce Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) directly from a Spectra Energy pipeline that delivers fracked gas from Marcellus Shale to Providence. LNG is produced by cooling natural gas to -260°F, which reduces its volume by 600 times and puts it into liquid form. As described in its application, National Grid would then utilize tanker trucks to export the LNG produced in Providence, primarily to locations in Massachusetts.

“No matter how you look at it, this project is a money-maker for the utility at the expense of our community and our state,” said Representative Almeida. “National Grid is asking us, the ratepayers, to foot the $180 million bill for this project, for what? So they can increase their own profits by exporting LNG out of the state! This does nothing to benefit our constituents, and it does nothing to benefit my neighbors on the South Side. All this proposal will do is transfer money from ratepayers’ pockets to National Grid’s coffers, and we’re not going to accept it.”

Legislators also expressed concerns about the safety risks of the proposed project.

“LNG is a dangerous substance,” said Representative Diaz. “Just two years ago, an LNG facility in Washington state exploded, causing an evacuation of everyone within a two-mile area. If that were to happen at this site, all of my constituents would be in danger. Why is it always our community that must shoulder the collateral damage and safety risks from these toxic projects?”

LNG is stable in liquid form, and without air it is not flammable. However, at any temperature over -260°F it converts to methane gas and expands by 600 times, rapidly pressurizing any sealed container. If LNG spills and mixes with airs, it becomes highly flammable and potentially explosive.

“I remember when Keyspan, which has since been bought by National Grid, applied to FERC with a similar proposal to build an LNG import facility at Fields Point in 2005,” said Senator Pichardo. “That application was denied due to the very real safety concerns of this kind of development. In fact, FERC Commissioner Nora Brownell cited the risks of accidents and explosions when turning down the proposal, stating that the project would not meet current federal safety standards. If doubling down on this dangerous fuel was unsafe ten years ago, it is unsafe for our neighborhood today, and I urge FERC to once again listen to the community’s opposition to this harmful development.”

Finally, the elected officials demanded that the climate consequences of the expanded fossil fuel infrastructure be taken into account.

“The science on climate change is clear. If my generation is to have any chance of inheriting an Ocean State with any state left in it, we need to transition to a clean energy economy as quickly as possible. This proposal would sink millions of ratepayer dollars into unnecessary new fossil fuel infrastructure that would be used for decades past our climate’s point of no return, and that is a betrayal of our children,” said Representative Regunberg. “Mayor Jorge Elorza and the Providence City Council have taken credit for being leaders on climate and environmental issues. But if the city awards a tax stabilization agreement to National Grid to support this project, then it is our belief that the mayor and council can no longer claim this kind of climate leadership. We hope they will do the right thing and tell National Grid that Providence will not facilitate this wasteful, ratepayer-funded, environmentally catastrophic scheme.”

The Providence legislators reported that they are submitting letters detailing their concerns to FERC, joining a growing list of community members and neighborhood organizations opposing National Grid’s application.

[From a press release]

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387