Energy – Page 3 – RI Future

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 21, 2016August 22, 2016

Jeff Grybowski: GOP corporate lawyer turned CEO climate hero

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

Jeff Grybowski didn’t set out to save the world from climate change. The CEO of Deepwater Wind, which just completed construction of the nation’s first offshore wind farm, wasn’t trying to be the first in the United States to commercially harness the offshore breeze and, in the process, potentially create a new sustainable industry for his home state.

“I freely admit that I didn’t know anything about energy before I started this,” he said, during an interview at Deepwater Wind’s downtown Providence office. “I didn’t think anything of it. I had no opinion.”

The Cumberland native and Brown grad was a corporate attorney in Providence, fresh off serving as chief of staff during conservative Republican Don Carcieri’s first term as governor, when a group from New Jersey approached him about the idea.

“It was the middle of 2008, that summer, when they called me and asked me how do we get a permit to build an offshore wind farm in Rhode Island,” he recalled. “I was doing regulatory law and we all started scratching our heads. But we were lawyers and we wanted to help answer the question.”

The process

Grybowski knew a thing or two about the regulatory process, both from his legal practice and his tenure in the executive branch at the State House, and that proved to be the name of the game.

“For offshore wind in the U.S. it’s never been about construction,” he told me. “It’s always been about the regulations and the legal structure that allows it to happen. Obviously we build things that are as big and as complex as an offshore wind farm. The offshore oil and gas, that stuff is much bigger. The question is can we as a society agree how to build these things, where to build them and what steps you need to take in order to get, let’s call it, community sign off. It was the newness of it, that was the biggest obstacle.”

The Block Island wind farm had to win approval from more than 20 federal, state and local government agencies before construction could start, he said.

“It was great that the U.S. Department of Energy says we think offshore wind is a huge resource and we should develop it,” he said, “but the reality is that really wasn’t as important to us as whether the town of New Shoreham thought it was a good idea.”

Navigating the regulatory process, Grybowski said, is Deepwater Wind’s “core competency.”

He explained, “You need to take it to not only all the agencies of the federal government and people who need to say yes, or who have a veto, and then you bring it down to the state government, all the different agencies, and then down to the local government. And all across that chain you have stakeholders who have the ability to influence the agencies. It’s a huge matrix. You’ve got to find a way to get yourself through that matrix of agencies and stakeholders, and that’s what I did.”

An energy transformation

Along the way, Grybowski also went from being the company’s legal counsel to being the company’s CEO. Eight years after the project was first conceived, Deepwater Wind just finished construction of the first offshore wind farm in the United States. The 5-unit array will produce 30 megawatts of power. Enough, Grybowski said, to power 17,000 average U.S. households.

It’s a relatively small amount of electricity, but Grybowski thinks it’s a big step in what he called an “energy transformation” away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy sources.

“I think offshore wind is about to become a huge component of this energy transformation,” he said. “As a native Rhode Islander I might have been quicker than others to recognize how ideally suited this state was because of our proximity to this enormous resource and because of some of the logistical advantages we have.”

It’s an obvious opportunity for the Ocean State, he thinks.

“We don’t generate a lot of resources locally,” Grybowski explained. “Coal gets shipped in. Gas gets piped in. We’re the end of the line from an energy perspective. But that’s one of the brilliant things about offshore wind for this region. We’re the beginning of the pipeline here because we control the resource. It’s right off our coast. It’s the single biggest natural resource that we have to produce energy in this region.”

The future for offshore wind

Deepwater Wind is already planning its second project. The company has leased 200 miles of ocean about 15 miles southeast of Block Island that could support 200 turbines, compared to the first farm’s five – or 1,000 megawatts compared to just 30. He thinks there is five times that much potential wind farm energy in the vicinity.

“There’s the capacity for 5,000 megawatts of offshore wind out there,” he said. “That’s just in the area that’s been identified in the near term, what could be developed in the next decade or so. That’s certainly not the limit of what we can do.”

Collectively, all the power plant in New England currently generates some 30,000 megawatts of power, Grybowski said. The northeast can expect offshore wind to meet a more substantial portion of its energy needs when it goes even farther offshore.

“That cable really isn’t that expensive,” he said. “It’s copper and plastic, so a little bit more really doesn’t matter that much. The other difference is it becomes deeper the further out you get so the steel structures that you have to use to put these on the ocean floor get taller and heavier. The equipment that you need to install it becomes bigger. Part of the science of the business is where is that sweet spot. Where is the sweet spot of the benefit of the wind versus the downside of the extra costs of getting to that wind.”

Grybowski added, “It’s a lot like the offshore oil business, forget about the resource. It’s the same kind of analysis we go through.”

Much of the offshore wind industry, he noted, is based on the offshore oil and gas industry. Deepwater Wind President Kris Van Beek relocated from the Netherlands to Providence. “He transitioned from offshore oil and gas to offshore wind and he moved to Rhode Island to do that,” Grybowski said. “He knows how to build things in the middle of the ocean.”

Rhode Island, energy exporter

It’s part of the energy transformation he spoke about.

“Unfortunately, the change from a micro-perspective seems really slow but I think the change is pretty inevitable,” Grybowski said. “It’s inevitable that, here in the Northeast, we are going to be building a lot of offshore wind in the coming decade. It’s impossible for us to meet our energy needs, and doubly impossible to address our energy needs and address climate change in a meaningful way, without building a significant amount of offshore wind.”

He was quite confident offshore wind would help us get the Ocean State to sustainability, boasting, “I think Rhode Island – for the first time in, maybe, forever – is going to be an energy exporter.”

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 19, 2016

Sidewalk 7 activists head to trial in resistance to fracked-gas

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

Four of the seven activists arrested for blocking the driveway at Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) headquarters during Beyond Extreme Energy’s #RubberStampRebellion in May are taking their cases to trial.

Defendants and supporters at courthouse in D.C.

At the Superior Court of the District of Columbia yesterday, #Sidewalk7 members Claude Guillemard of Baltimore, MD, Ellen Taylor of Washington, D.C., and Donald Weightman of Philadelphia, PA, said that they would go to trial, set for Dec. 8, for their May 9 blockade at the FERC.

Peter Nightingale, of Kingston, RI, was arraigned only yesterday because he was out of the country during the first court date. He says he intends to go to trial. BXE and other groups have long criticized the agency for rubber-stamping fracked-gas pipelines, compressor stations and export facilities that it reviews.

“We have been charged with unlawful entry,” Weightman said, “but the real crime is the unlawful entry of methane and carbon dioxide into our air, the unlawful entry of toxic waste into our water, and the unlawful entry of global warming into the future of our world. The real weapon is fracked gas; FERC is the real defendant; we will charge FERC with the commission of a crime.”

The other three #Sidewalk7 activists – Melinda Tuhus of Connecticut, Clarke Herbert of Virginia and Linda Reik of New York – agreed to perform 32 hours of community service and to stay away from the 800 block of 1st Avenue NE, the area of the FERC offices, for four months.

The court actions yesterday were part of the ongoing resistance to fracked-gas infrastructure, including demanding a halt to expansion of Spectra’s AIM Project pipeline. #StopSpectra activists have declared a “state of emergency” in advance of a noon press conference Thursday outside the Manhattan offices of Sens. Charles Schumer and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. The senators wrote a letter to FERC on Aug. 3 calling for construction to stop. In February, Gov. Andrew Cuomo also asked FERC to postpone the pipeline expansion.

After the court hearing, New York, BXE, and Fossil Free Rhode Island activists hand-delivered invitations to the press conference to the senators’ Washington offices.

The pipeline “would bring fracked gas from Pennsylvania to New England, despite a report from the Massachusetts Attorney General that shows no need for this gas,” the letter said. “In NY, if completed, the AIM Pipeline would carry gas through residential communities and within 105 feet of critical Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant safety facilities.

Just last April, Spectra Energy’s Texas Eastern line erupted into a giant explosion due to pipeline corrosion, and New Yorkers fear what an explosion of this magnitude could mean in such close proximity to Indian Point. Over the last several years, communities along the pipeline route have risen up against the pipeline, and are counting on New York senators to help stop this dangerous project.”

Activists delivered a letter from Fossil Free Rhode Island to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s office. The senator is generally considered to be a climate champion, but he supports fracked gas as a bridge fuel. The letter asks the senator to change his position so that it is consistent with science and with the nation’s obligations under international treaties, the Rio Declaration in particular. The letter ends stating: “As a small step in that direction, maybe you could start by following Bill McKibben’s suggestion, ‘correcting the outmoded way the EPA calculates the warming effect of methane.’”

In June, DeSmog Blog reported that a FERC employee who was the agency’s project manager for reviewing the then-proposed AIM pipeline had been hired by an engineering company that is one of Spectra’s main contractors. DeSmog Blog reported in May and July that a contractor hired by FERC to conduct an environmental review of a Spectra project was already working on related Spectra pipeline projects. U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey have written to FERC Chairman Norman Bay asking about the “potential conflicts of interest.”

A campaign of nonviolent civil disobedience is also ongoing in West Roxbury, MA, where 165 people have been arrested so far blocking construction of the West Roxbury Lateral pipeline. Resist the Pipeline is coordinating those actions. In addition, the City Council, mayor, the state representative, state senator and U.S. Congressman Stephen Lynch oppose the project.

Boston City Council President Michelle Wu said, “Climate change impacts us all and especially future generations. We need immediate, bold action to transition rapidly away from reliance on fossil fuels to renewable energy. Building new natural gas infrastructure, such as Spectra Energy’s West Roxbury Lateral Pipeline, is wrong for our communities and wrong for future generations. I applaud the thoughtful, purposeful, nonviolent civil disobedience West Roxbury residents and friends are practicing to accomplish what needs to get done.”

In addition, Massachusetts’ highest court ruled today that the state can’t force residential ratepayers to subsidize the construction of pipelines. “This is an incredibly important and timely decision,” said David Ismay, lead attorney on the case for Conservation Law Foundation. “Today our highest court affirmed Massachusetts’ commitment to an open energy future by rejecting the Baker Administration’s attempt to subsidize 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.”
[Based on a BXE press release.]

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 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

Sierra Club seeks clarification from Elorza on LNG statement

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 has responded to Mayor Jorge Elorza‘s statement on National Grid‘s proposed liquefaction project for Field’s Point in the Port of Providence.

“The Rhode Island Sierra Club is glad the Mayor has publicly agreed to not offer any subsidies to National Grid related to the LNG liquefaction project in Fields Point. We would however urge him to clarify whether his definition of subsidy also includes Tax Stabilization Agreements and if it doesn’t, we would would ask him to take the same strong stance against those type of subsidies and end TSA negotiations immediately.

“While Elorza is correct in saying the decision will ultimately be made by FERC, we would argue his assertion, ‘the city will have little input into that decision’ is false. The mayor can’t abdicate his responsibility on this. Local officials can be hugely influential on Federal decisions. An outcry from public officials immensely helped in 2005 when a similar project was ultimately denied. Not sending in a letter, like the one nine Providence legislators sent to FERC last week, is a statement and a betrayal of his rhetoric on climate change.

“At the absolute minimum, we would ask the mayor to join the thousands of residents, and many businesses, environmental, community and religious organizations in signing the NoLNGinPVD campaign’s petition letter to FERC.

“The mayor also needs to hold the City Council accountable and ask them to follow through on their resolution to provide wide-scale public involvement, on which no action has been taken. They resolved to host meetings between National Grid, Dept. of Health, DEM, Coastal Resource Management Corporation and city residents, and city residents deserve nothing less.”

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]

August 3, 2016August 3, 2016

National Grid wants RI ratepayers to guarantee its profits

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 is requesting that the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (RIPUC) approve a 20-year gas capacity contract” with Algonquin Gas Transmission Company LLC (Algonquin) for natural gas transportation capacity and storage services on Algonquin’s Access Northeast Project (ANE Project).”

The multinational energy conglomerate not only wants Rhode Island ratepayers to subsidize the construction of fracked gas infrastructure, they want consumers to ensure that the project is profitable for the company.

Part of National Grid’s 572 page application includes “a Capacity Cost Recovery Provision tariff, which allows the Company to recover all incremental costs associated with the ANE Agreement, as well as the Company’s proposed financial incentive.” Understand that when National Grid says “financial incentives” they are talking about company profits.

The logic that National Grid is using to claim the right to tariffs is that the RIPUC has allowed such charges when it comes to “long-term renewable electricity for retail customers from wholesale power providers.” [emphasis added] In other words, because the government has taken an interest in expanding renewable energy sources like wind and solar, and allowed tariffs to support these efforts, National Grid argues that it should be allowed similar considerations for fossil fuels such as fracked gas.

National Grid owns a 20 percent stake in the ANE Project, so Rhode Islanders will be ensuring that the company generates a profit as they buy fracked gas from themselves if the RIPUC approves this request.

A similar tariff stalled in the Massachusetts legislature, where the state Senate unanimously rejected the idea but the session ended before a House vote. The Massachusetts Supreme Court is deciding on the validity of the tariff, since the Massachusetts PUC approved the idea.

National Grid also asked that their request be approved “as expeditiously as possible,” meaning that they want the decision fast tracked. As a result, the public comment meeting held last night at the RIPUC offices in Warwick was the first and last opportunity for public comment, unless RIPUC commissioners Margaret Curran and Herbert DeSimone III decide to hold another public comment meeting. (The third member of the RIPUC board, Marion Gold, has recused herself.) Written comment can be sent to thomas.kogut@dpuc.ri.gov. Mention that you are commenting on Docket No. 4627.

The first speaker of the night, Doug Gablinske of The Energy Council of New England (TEC-RI), was also the only speaker in favor of the idea. Gablinske called the project “a novel approach” and said that “it’s good for ratepayers, for employees, for employers and for business.”

From there, things went downhill pretty quickly.

Calling the tariff an “unprecedented charge” Priscilla De La Cruz of the People’s Power and Light called on the RIPUC to reject National Grid’s request. “Why should consumers take on the risk of a new, unnecessary gas pipeline?” De La Cruz maintained that the entire idea conflicts with the goals of the 2014 Resilient Rhode Island Act. (You can read De La Cruz’s full testimony here.)

Lynn Clark came down from Burrillville, wearing her “No New Power Plant” tee shirt to argue against the proposal. She said that allowing National Grid to pass the costs of their LNG project onto consumers adds “insult to injury” to everyone living in her part of the state.

Other states did comprehensive studies before considering pipeline tariffs, said Nick Katkevich of the FANG Collective, who has been fighting pipeline projects in and around Rhode Island for three years. Massachusetts and Maine have both produced studies that concluded that pipeline tariffs are a bad idea, said Katkevich. “It’s shameful that National Grid wants to have guaranteed profits as part of this,” said Katkevich. “They don’t care about people. They don’t care about people’s utility rates… if they did they wouldn’t put guaranteed profits in there.”

“No one wants these pipelines,” said Katkevich, “across the region people are resisting the first of the three Spectra expansions… There have been 240 people arrested as part of direct action in New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts.”

If you have an opinion on this project, you can send it to Luly.massaro@puc.ri.gov. Mention that you are commenting on Docket No. 4627.

Below find all the testimony from the hearing.

July 27, 2016

LNG as bad as coal, or worse says new report

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

A new report released by Toxics Action Center, Frontier Group, Environment America and more than a dozen community groups across New England finds that burning gas for electricity is as bad for the climate as coal, or worse.

The report, titled “Natural Gas and Global Warming: A Review of Evidence Finds that Methane Leaks Undercut the Climate Benefits of Gas,” shows that older claims that gas has a modest impact on the climate are wrong, as they fail to account for the greenhouse gas effect of methane and high rates of methane leaks from gas infrastructure.

Ben Weilerstein, eastern Massachusetts and Rhode Island organizer with the Toxics Action Center, held a press conference outside the RI State House with Kathy Martley of BASE (Burrillville Against Spectra Expansion). Martley has been fighting the expansion of fracked gas infrastructure in Burrillville for years, and was the woman responsible for getting Governor Gina Raimondo to visit the town to discuss Invenergy‘s planned $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant.

“For years, communities on the frontlines of proposed pipelines, power plants, compressor stations, and LNG terminals have been told by the fossil fuel lobby and politicians that gas is a low-carbon bridge to a clean energy future,” said Weilerstein. “Today, it’s clearer than ever that this is not the case. New fracked gas infrastructure proposed across the region threatens our climate future, our health, and our neighborhoods. It’s time to double down on clean local renewable energy sources right here in New England.

“Methane can leak during every stage of natural gas production – during drilling, processing, and even from the pipeline,” said Elizabeth Ridlington of Frontier Group in a statement. Ridlington wrote the report, saying, “Our review of the evidence suggests that these leaks may have an annual global warming impact equivalent of up to 250 coal-fired power plants, enough to nearly or completely offset any other climate benefits of natural gas.”

Released simultaneously in seven New England cities and towns today, the report emphasizes that methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, trapping 86 to 105 times as much heat as CO2 over a 20-year period. Making these findings even more concerning, the report authors found flaws in studies that reported very low rates of methane leakage, finding evidence instead of high rates of methane leaks from gas infrastructure.

Kathy Martley noted that reports like this have been coming out for years, and that it’s time for the Governor Gina Raimondo and Rhode Island Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Jack Reed to read these reports and act. “For health and environmental reasons we need to stop LNG now,” said Martley.

July 27, 2016July 28, 2016

Save The Bay wants Invenergy to prove consistency with Resilient RI

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

In a carefully worded press release, Save The Bay, one of Rhode Island’s premiere environmental advocacy groups, said, “it would be premature for the RI Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) to make a decision on a proposed natural gas-fired power plant in Burrillville before the state adopts a greenhouse gas reduction strategy.”

“Under the Resilient RI Act of 2014, the Executive Climate Change Coordinating Council (EC4) is required to submit to the Governor and General Assembly a strategy for achieving greenhouse gas emission (GHG) targets set forth in the Act. The deadline for this report is December 31, 2016. Until this strategy has been developed and adopted and the Invenergy proposal is shown to be consistent with the GHG reduction goals of the Resilient RI Act, it is premature for the RI Energy Facility Siting Board to issue a decision on Invenergy’s proposed power plant,” said Save the Bay Executive Director Jonathan Stone.

“Save The Bay expects the EC4 to consider carefully and thoughtfully a number of important questions in charting the state’s energy course. Among them: benefits and impacts of investments in renewable energy generation and energy conservation on energy system supply, distribution and reliability; the role of hydroelectric power in replacing nuclear power as part of the region’s energy mix; and whether or not the power generation capacity of the proposed facility is needed.

“Climate change is caused by the burning of fossil fuels and poses profound threats to the health and resilience of Narragansett Bay,” said Stone. “The pace of climate change is expected to accelerate. Already, rising sea levels are degrading the health of coastal wetlands, worsening coastal erosion and threatening public access along the shore. Warming temperatures contribute to harmful algal blooms, low oxygen levels in the Bay, and the loss of native species.”

If the Invenergy project moves forward and specific site plans and required permit applications are submitted to the RI Department of Environmental Management, Save The Bay will evaluate the proposed plant’s impacts on water quality, wetlands, and habitat conditions, in keeping with its role as steward of Narragansett Bay.

[Note: an earlier version of this piece was released with an incorrect Save the Bay logo.]

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