Ben Weilerstein – RI Future

September 22, 2016

EFSB Public Hearing in Warwick a time for reflection on the process

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

The Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) public hearing in Warwick Wednesday evening, coming near the end of the process to decide the fate of Invenergy‘s proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant, was filled with almost philosophical reflection, with many speakers, who have sat through dozens of EFSB, town council, zoning and department meetings and honed their public speaking skills, commenting with a battle weary determination and steely resolve.

Perhaps no one summed up the emotional toll of the process better than Kerri Fagan, who reminded the board of the promises made regarding the fairness of the process by elected officials such as Governor Gina Raimondo and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse as well as by the board members themselves, then launched into a long list of irregularities and seeming violations of the process that tend to favor Invenergy and disfavor the towns people.

Six of the twelve advisory opinions, said Fagan, maintain that, “Invenergy did not provide enough information before the deadline for them to submit an appropriate advisory opinion.”

Fagan explained that the process allows for the RI Public Utilities Commission advisory opinion, “to be completed by a single person, [Herbert DeSimone Jr]” after one of the other members recused themselves because they “previously expressed support for the project.” The process of having one person make that decision was questioned, said Fagan, but was ruled appropriate by the single board member, DeSimone Jr.

“The process allows Invenergy representatives to falsely testify at open meetings,” said Fagan. “Did the process require them to acknowledge their misinformation? No. There are probably people who still believe they will receive great rate savings,” if the power plant is built. Fagan says the process also allowed Invenergy to falsely advertise meeting locations and times.

The process, said Fagan, requires that the Burrillville Town Council remain neutral throughout the process, yet Governor Raimondo and Senator Whitehouse can express their support for the project.

The process allows attorney Richard Sinapi to represent the Harrisville Water Board, but also lobby against Burrillville Representative Cale Keable‘s EFSB bill on behalf of labor unions, while also allowing his law firm to write a position opposing the Town of Burrillville’s Motion to Dismiss. “The question of conflict of interest was raised, but [Sinapi] continues to represent parties on both sides of this proposal.”

The process allows the Governor and labor unions to advocate for the process based on the jobs it will create, but the EFSB is not charged with creating jobs, but with determining energy needs and judging environmental impacts. “I don’t believe the EFSB has a responsibility to create jobs,” said Fagan,” and I don’t believe it is an appropriate outcome to consider in this setting. Yet the process has allowed this to be a major rallying cry for those that support the process.”

“It is very hard for the residents to respect the process,” said Fagan, “as it seems to be flawed in all areas. The EFSB board works for the Governor. The Governor supports the project. Companies such as Goldman Sachs and General Electric appear to be partners in both this proposed project as well as working with the Governor on statewide initiatives.

“Why has there not been a comprehensive environmental impact statement completed?”

“We can only hope that [the EFSB] will truly listen and read through why this is the wrong project and in the wrong location,” said Fagan, wrapping up, “We hope that you have the strength to fight the state wide politics and make a decision on the merits of the project and truly consider the negative, long lasting detrimental impacts that this project will bring to the Town of Burrillville.”

Other speakers that leaped out at me include Paul Roselli of the Burrillville Land Trust, who praised the RI Department of Enviornmental Management‘s advisory opinion.

Cranston native Rhoda Northup said that this was “not just a Burrillville issue, but a statewide issue. It’s also a Connecticut and Massachusetts issue. “Do we go thirsty and the power plant gets the water?” asked Northup.

Suzanne Dumas

Sally Mendzela spoke about the reality of climate change, and how plants like the one proposed by Invenergy will doom our planet.

Lynn Clark

Mary Gauvin

Smart energy conservation could easily absorb the 10,000 megawatts going offline, the power plant is not needed said Vito Buonomano.

Lisa Petrie explained her concerns as a mother, and explained why she chose to be arrested outside Governor Raimondo’s office.

Donna Woods told the EFSB members, “You do know better” than to approve this plant.

Denise Potvin

This public comment meeting was scheduled for after the last of a dozen advisory opinions were filed with the EFSB. Many who spoke at the hearing pointed out that at least six of the advisory opinions are incomplete, because Invenergy could not supply required information.

The testimony and hearing was also colored by the fact that the Burrillville Town Council will be voting tonight on whether or not to oppose the power plant in a meeting at the Burrillville High School Thursday night, and will be voting on whether to approve or reject a proposed tax treaty between the town and Invenergy on Monday evening. The groups in opposition to the power plant from Burrillville do not want the town council to approve the tax treaty, which may characterized as selling the town for a measly $92 million.

There will be one more public comment meeting, originally to be held on October 3 but not postponed, date to be determined due to Invenergy’s request for a thirty day extension as they work to secure a water source for their plant. In the meantime, the EFSB board will hold a meeting to decide on two motions to dismiss Invenergy’s application, one from the Town of Burrillville and the other from the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) based on Invenergy’s incomplete application and failure to provide adequate or timely information when requested.

Here is the video of all the speakers:

Richard Dionne said that Invenergy should be required to submit all requested information.

Doug Geblinske of TEC-RI spoke in favor of the power plant.

Eugenia Marks, noted environmentalist former head of the RI Audubon Society, spoke against the plant.

David Brunetti questioned Invenergy’s “cicular logic” in determining that Burrillville was the location for this plant.

Kathryn Scaramella questioned the “small but meaningful savings” ratepayers will receive if the plant is built. She pointed out that the extension Invenergy requested was a violation of terms EFSB Chair Meg Curran set out in May, when she said “all deadlines are set in law.”

Mary Jane Bailey said the location chosen for the power plant was rejected when the Ocean State Power Plant was built in the 1980’s. “If it wasn’t right in the ’80s it’s not right now,” said Bailey.

Ben Weilerstein, of the Toxic Action Center said that the same kind of action taking place in Burrillville is what helped defeat the pipeline project in Massachusetts.

Meg Kerr, senior policy director for the RI Audubon Society spoke against the plant.

John McMullen, business agent for the Plumbers and Pipefitters union spoke in favor of the plant, saying there was a need for the energy and the jobs. He said that RI Building Trades supported Deepwater Wind and that a life of temporary jobs allowed him to raise his daughters and send them to college.

Irene Watson noted that her community’s public speaking skills have improved because of the countless meetings they’ve been to.

Kenneth Putnam Jr spoke from the heart. He’s 76 and 1 day old.

Betty Mancucci

John Anthony Scott

Jeremy Bailey

Roy Coloumbe said he represents two dozen iron workers from Burrillville who support the project.

Attorney Greg Mancini is Richard Sinapi’s law partner and represents the RI Building Trades.

“The power plant will be around 30-40 years from now, says Stephanie Sloman. “”I’ll be dead, you’ll be dead,” she told the EFSB members, “75 percent of the people here will be dead. I’m not trying to be funny.” It’s about the future.

Sloman gave each member of the EFSB this picture, to remind them of the species they will either help to save or destroy, depending on how they decide on the power plant.

Cynthia Crook-Pick compared the power plant to 38 Studios, both are being pushed forward with inadequate information.

Karen Palmer

Jason Olkowski

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 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.

2016-08-02 RIPUC 006 Pricilla De la Cruz — Pricilla De la Cruz

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.