Clear River Energy Center – Page 2

January 25, 2016May 1, 2016

Invenergy’s proposed power plant will burn oil

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

The Clear River Energy Center, a power plant that Invenergy wants to build in Burrillville, has been advertised as a “natural” gas powered facility that will cut climate change causing emissions, but Invenergy’s plans call for “two one million gallon fuel oil storage tanks on site.” The power plant planned for Burrillville is to be equipped with “new combustion turbines” that will be “dual fuel,” meaning they will be able to burn gas or oil.

“In order to comply with the Pay-for-Performance initiative, many natural gas generators are installing dual fuel capability,” said Invenergy, during their presentation to the Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB). “Duel fuel facilities typically burn fuel oil during periods of natural gas scarcity, leading to overall more emissions intensive footprints than facilities that have secured firm natural gas as a cleaner solution, such as Clear River.” (emphasis mine)

It should be noted that Invenergy is planning to buy “firm gas.” They are building their plant on land adjacent to the Spectra gas pipeline, and they are actually going to enter into a contract guaranteeing them gas. Invenergy may be the first electricity power plant in the entire ISO-NE footprint to contract for firm gas. Invenergy hopes that this will ensure that their plant needs to burn oil very seldom. There is a plus and a minus to contracting for firm gas. The minus is that you pay a premium for the guarantee of firm delivery. The plus is that you are guaranteed delivery of much cheaper gas.

However, the term “natural gas scarcity” could refer to any time that natural gas has become more expensive than oil. Every economic textbook begins by explaining the scarcity/price relationship. So it follows that Invenergy intends the Clear River Energy Center to generate its power with oil in the event that gas prices become prohibitive. (As of publication Invenergy has not responded to questions about this.)

Fortunately, shale gas production and fracking will provide cheap, clean natural gas for the next hundred years right? (Putting aside, for the moment, the fact that methane is 80x more potent as a GHG than C02, so the methane emissions are a huge concern.)

Not quite, say an ever increasing number of experts.

As Bill Powers wrote on Forbes, “While many grandiose claims about the potential supply of shale gas, such as ‘the US has a 100-year supply’, have been made in recent years; almost none have ever been supported by any empirical evidence.”

Powers, who does not consider himself an environmentalist, goes on to explain that his analysis of the gas industry does not support the “wildly optimistic” the US Energy Information Administration (EIA)’s enthusiasm about gas production.

John Manning, at the International Banker, agrees. After presenting a short history followed by a look at the economic impacts of the expensive technology and costly environmental effects of fracking, Manning notes the trend of “a downward revision of the estimated shale oil and gas reserves in the country.”

Manning goes on to say, “A new report from the EIA has revealed that the Monterey shale basin in California, which was previously thought to hold 15.4 billion recoverable barrels of crude, making it the most promising untapped deposit, actually holds just 4% of this amount, or 600 million barrels. Exploitation of the Monterey shale was to create 2.6 million new jobs and add $24.6 billion in tax revenues by 2020. This is a heavy blow, and when it is added to the other pressures on the industry, it resonates all the more deeply as it raises questions about the deposits that have already been exploited, the reserves of which are being reported by the oil industry itself. The future of energy will be all about sustainability and within the fracking industry sustainability is in rather short supply.” (emphasis mine)

Then there’s this graph, courtesy of the Post Carbon Institute, which says that the EIA has been seriously exaggerating gas production.

Finally, take a look at ShaleBubble.org which makes the progressive, environmentalist argument for the gas bubble. The idea that our coming reliance on natural gas is little more than an industry ruse to keep us all hooked on fossil fuels suddenly starts to seem like a very real possibility.

So let’s go back to Invenergy’s plans for Burrillville, which include “dual fuel” combustion turbines. All of Invenergy’s pollution reduction promises are based on the burning of fracked methane (natural gas) which means (again, putting aside the fact that methane is 80x more potent as a GHG than C02, so the methane emissions are a huge concern) that when the plant burns oil, it will generate the very kind of climate changing pollution it has ostensibly been built to prevent.

And Invenergy is fast tracking their application with the EFSB. They want all project permits to be granted this year so they can begin construction by early 2017 and start producing energy by June 2019.

Why the rush?

The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) quotes Invenergy as saying it wants to “bid into the ISO-NE’s Forward Capacity Auction number 10 (“FCA 10”) in February 2016, and if selected, commercial operation of the Facility will be required by June 1, 2019, with significant penalties due if this capacity obligation is not met.”

“Invenergy,” says the CLF, “for reasons that seemed appropriate to Invenergy” has put itself in the position of losing a lot of money if their new plant is not producing electricity by 2019. Later in their brief the CLF says, “Invenergy chose to participate in the upcoming auction before it had any of the permits required for its proposed plant, and, as a result, Invenergy is now trying to stampede the EFSB into processing its (Invenergy’s) application prematurely, even while that application is facially incomplete in multiple respects.”

Instead of producing a complete proposal, as required by law, the CLF contends that Invenergy submitted an incomplete application. The CLF does not speculate as to why Invenergy has put itself in such an unfavorable position.

But a clue might be found on the ShaleBubble.org website:

“An exhaustive, county-by-county analysis of the 12 major shale plays in the U.S. (accounting for 89% of current tight oil and 88% of current shale gas production) concludes that both oil and natural gas production will peak this decade and decline to a small fraction of current production by 2040.”

In other words, by 2019, when the plant is operational, there’s a good chance that the gas bubble will have burst or will be about to. Domestic oil and gas prices will soar, leaving only imported oil as an economically viable fuel source. And guess what?

The Burrillville power plant is ready to burn oil.

Now, because oil prices are certain to rise and because power plants burning oil are more heavily regulated and therefore more costly and limited in their operation, the business case for the Invenergy plant running as an oil plant is very different and much less plausible than running on gas. That said, the most compelling case for the new plant is based on cost savings and meeting energy needs. If gas skyrockets in price, so will the cost of energy. Since gas is a limited commodity whether their is a bubble or not, the price is sure to rise. The price trends on renewables, however, is downward.

January 22, 2016January 23, 2016

“Zero-emission” cars running on 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

In an editorial this week in the ProJo, Janet Coit and Marion Gold come to the rescue of embattled Governor Gina Raimondo. Janet Coit is Director of Rhode Island’s Department of Environmental Management and Marion Gold is Commissioner of the Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources. Both serve at the pleasure of the governor and whatever strengths, independence is not one of them.

Governor Raimondo has troubling connections to Wall Street going back to her days as Rhode Island treasurer. Here are just two of a recent flurry of publications questioning the pension fund reforms that she pushed through in those days:

One of Governor Raimondo’s key supporters is John Arnold, a former Enron trader who went on to found a profitable hedge fund.

The irony of the Coit-Gold ProJo editorial is that it’s based on Enron-style accounting, used in this case to hyper-inflate Governor Raimondo’s “visionary” contributions to the climate change battle.

In their editorial Coit and Gold mention that RI ranks number four on the State Energy Efficiency Scorecard put out by ACEEE. You do not have to know how this ranking is produced to understand that it is pure bunk. Just look at what the Energy Information Adminstration web site has to say about Rhode Island:

Natural gas fueled 95% of Rhode Island’s net electricity generation in 2014.
Rhode Island is the second-lowest emitter of carbon dioxide among all states. Like the lowest emitter, Vermont, Rhode Island does not have any coal-fired electricity generation.

Natural gas is mostly methane. It is a greenhouse gas that is about 100 times as potent as CO₂. Methane is burned and escapes unburnt to generate Rhode Island electricity, but we put all of those climate threatening emissions on our neighbors’ tabs.

There is more about the ACEEE rating of Rhode Island as fourth in the nation that is disconcerting. Scan the ACEEE web site and you quickly discover that they mention EPA’s Clean Power Plan again and again. There are some minor problems with this plan:

Obama’s “Clean Power Plan” is a huge gift to the methane (“Clean Energy”) industry — we’ll show you how in a minute. And guess who’s big in methane? Big oil, of course […]

The plan fits perfectly with Obama’s general practice of saying one thing and doing the opposite.

Director Coit is one of the members of the Energy Facility Siting Board that is currently deliberating the fate of the new fracked-gas power plant with the Orwellian name Clear River Energy Center, Invenergy’s plan to sacrifice Burrillville to unfettered greed.

Coit is publicly on record with her support of methane:

With her so-called pragmatism, doesn’t Director Coit not sound remarkably like House Speaker Mattiello?

In the Coit-Gold editorial there is not a word about Clear River, nor about the natural gas that already produces 95% of RI’s electrical power. There is no mention that Governor Gina Ms Wall Street Raimondo is on record supporting fracked gas. That silence must be “because there is a fire wall,” as Director Coit said in the preliminary hearing of the siting board last week. How convenient!

As the Clear River theater of the siting board progresses, we might hear about the CO₂ emissions the power plant will produce in Rhode Island. What we will not hear from the Governor and her allies on the board is to whom we will charge the fugitive methane. Most of that escapes at the wellheads in Pennsylvania and along the pipelines and from the compressor stations. Nor will we hear about the suffering it causes to the people on the frontlines in Burrillville and across the globe. None of that, but we’ll follow the statutes, because we are a nation of laws.

Indeed, all of the Enron-style accounting is perfectly legal, but, dear reader, you surely do not believe any more than I do, that Mother Nature is impressed.

There is yet another accounting trick buried in the Coit-Gold editorial: the Zero-Emission Vehicle Action Plan. True, we need electric cars and they have no tail pipes that emits CO₂. Still, the electric energy such cars use has to be generated somewhere. If it comes from renewables we win; if we generate it with fracked gas, we loose. The latter is of course exactly what will happen if we let Invenergy build the Clear River Energy Center.

We are constructing a 30 megawatt wind farm off Block Island and are talking about a frack-gas facility with 30 times that capacity in Burrillville. Accounting gimmicks devoid of physics may fool the people, the editor of the the ProJo and our hapless leaders, but none of that will change the laws of nature.

Update after the original post: Senator Sheldon Whitehouse from National Grid has finally made up his mind and now supports the Clear River Energy Center. He uses his same old arguments about choke points and price spikes. That was none of that last winter is but an irrelevant detail: As New England freezes, natural gas stays cheap.

January 21, 2016October 6, 2016

Raimondo: States need ‘broader view’ of renewable power

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

The Governors’ Wind Energy Coalition announced that it “will pair its advocacy work for wind with work for solar energy as well” and has changed its name to the Governors’ Wind and Solar Energy Coalition (GWSC).

Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo, who serves as Vice Chair of the Coalition, said, “I support the foresight of my colleagues to broaden the Coalition’s focus and include solar energy development as a policy priority. Wind and solar provide complementary benefits to the U.S. electric grid and will help diversify the country’s energy mix. The need for states to take a broader view of renewable power is clear.”

Raimondo’s support of wind and solar seems at odds with her support for Invenergy‘s proposed Clear River Energy Center, a fossil fuel power plant slated to be built in Burrillville. John Niland, vice president of business development at Invenergy said in an interview with Ted Nesi that his company is “very keen on renewable energy” but not, apparently for Rhode Island. Is this new embrace of solar and wind power a sign that Raimondo is shifting her position on methane gas?

According to an American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) press release:

“This bipartisan governors’ coalition has been highly effective at getting policy results and have helped grow wind energy for nearly a decade,” said Tom Kiernan, CEO of the AWEA. “The governors’ decision to combine forces with solar energy reflects the economic and environmental value of diversifying our nation’s grid with clean, reliable renewable energy.”

Technological innovations and performance-based policy continue to help lower wind and solar energy’s costs, making both homegrown technologies more affordable than ever. Wind and solar power are important job creators, putting Americans to work in all 50 states.

Wind and solar energy added 61 percent of all new generation capacity in 2015 through November according to SNL Energy. As states make plans to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan, the nation’s first-ever rule to reduce carbon emissions from existing power plants, zero-emission wind and solar power are expected to continue supplying large amounts new electricity in the years ahead, resulting in numerous consumer and environmental benefits.

American wind power now supplies enough electricity for 19 million American homes after surpassing the 70 gigawatt (GW) mark of installed wind capacity late last year. Wind energy could double to supply 10 percent of the U.S. electricity mix by 2020, and double again to supply 20 percent of U.S. electricity by 2030. It can become one of the largest sources of electricity in the U.S. by supplying 35 percent by 2050. According to the Department of Energy’s Wind Vision report, by meeting the 2030 scenario American wind power could support 380,000 well-paying jobs, a number that could grow to 600,000 by 2050.

Emerging opportunities to invest in the rapid growth of the U.S. wind energy industry will be on full display at this year’s WINDPOWER 2016 in New Orleans from May 23 – May 26. The event is the Western Hemisphere’s largest annual wind power trade show.

January 13, 2016May 3, 2016

Fossil Free RI statement on Invenergy power plant hearing

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

At its public meeting today, the Rhode Island Energy Facility Siting Board postponed ruling on giving grassroots groups and individuals the opportunity to get a fair hearing of their objections to the Clear River Energy Center, a fracked-gas power plant proposed by Invenergy, based in Chicago, IL. The board will announce its final ruling on this matter at the next public hearing, scheduled for January 29.

The two remaining members of the three who should make up the board serve at the pleasure of Governor Raimondo, who is on record supporting expansion of the “natural” gas infrastructure. As a result, Janet Coit, one of the two board members, is in a bind. She is Director of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management and an avid environmentalist. Last summer, she spoke at the Sierra Club-sponsored rally, “The Environment is Everyone’s Business.” Coit is painfully aware of the toll climate change is already taking on life in Narragansett Bay. At the rally, she referred to a “profound experience” she had looking at colonial nesting birds on Hope Island. She said: “There are several islands in the Bay that used to host colonies of nesting terns and now they are submerged.”

Said Lisa Petrie of Fossil Free Rhode Island: “We’re calling on Governor Raimondo to wake up and recognize that building more gas-fired power plants threatens the future of our state and of humanity as a whole.” Indeed, the Invenergy proposal is inconsistent with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 Endangerment Finding, which determined that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare of current and future generations. This language parallels that of the 2007 denial of a fossil-fuel plant permit by Roderick Brembly, Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Obviously, team Raimondo is lagging reality by almost a decade.

Fossil Free Rhode Island reiterated that Governor Raimondo’s policies violate Article 1, Section 17 of the Rhode Island Constitution, the supreme law of the state, which clearly specifies the duty “to provide for the conservation of the air, land, water, plant, animal, mineral and other natural resources of the state.”

The Conservation Law Foundation has put forth that, by increasing Rhode Island’s greenhouse gas emissions, the Clear River Energy Center would violate the Resilient Rhode Island Act of 2014. The foundation urged the Board to terminate its deliberations, which would effectively deny Invenergy the permit it seeks.

The Burrillville Land Trust, in a blistering take down of Invenergy’s proposal, argued for the same and writes: “We are being denied an opportunity to respond in a meaningful way because of mis-information, inadequate information and outright absence of information.”

Governor Raimondo has tried to make the case that Invenergy’s Energy Center will bring jobs to Rhode Island. The Rhode Island Building and Construction Trades Council, in its request for late intervention, agrees with the governor. This view is untenable and Fossil Free Rhode Island referred to a recent report of the Political Economy Research Institute of UMass in Amherst that states: “New investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy will generate more jobs for a given amount of spending than maintaining or expanding each country’s existing fossil fuel sectors.”

Fossil Free Rhode Island once again drew attention to current research that shows that, given the urgency of dealing with climate change, “natural” gas has a larger greenhouse gas footprint than coal and oil. In other words, Invenergy’s proposed power plant is bad for Rhode Island on all counts: physics, economics and morality.

Sister Mary Pendergast, one of the individual intervenors, said: “I do not think that the spiritual and moral issues of environmental ethics will be adequately represented by excluding my testimony. Any decision the Siting Board makes that is good for the corporation, but not for the environment, is a bad decision and we will live to regret it.”

The Board referred to the ambiguous rules under which they operate. They seem to interpret the rules as the requirement of attorney representation. This interpretation would exclude virtually all members of the public who filed for the status of intervenor. Pat Fontes, representing Occupy Providence, said: “The refusal to admit the voice of Occupy Providence in the deliberations of this board would symbolize and contribute to the likelihood that ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people’ will indeed perish from the earth.”

[From a press release]

RI Future covered the hearing here: Strong public opposition to Burrillville power plant at hearing

January 12, 2016May 3, 2016

Strong public opposition to Burrillville power plant at hearing

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

The new methane gas power plant planned by Invenergy for the Town of Burrillville met strong opposition from a variety of environmental groups but also had what seemed like strong support from both members of the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) which will ultimately approve or deny the application. The EFSB is chaired by RI Public Utilities Commission (RIPUC) Chairperson Margaret Curran and has only one other sitting member, Janet Coit, director of the Department of Environmental Management (DEM). The third position on the board is usually filled by the associate director of the RI Administration for Planning, a position currently unfilled, but it is expected that Governor Gina Raimondo will choose someone to fill that role soon.

As the standing room only hearing got under way, Chairperson Curran noted that there hasn’t been a hearing like this since 1999, the last time an energy project of this size was considered. No public comment was allowed at this meeting, but Curran said that there were three public comment meetings scheduled. (It turns out they have not been scheduled at the time of this writing.)

Board member Coit spent some time near the beginning of the hearing informing the room that her position as head of the DEM will not impact her decisions as an EFSB board member. The duties of the DEM in deciding on key aspects of Invenergy’s proposed power plant have been delegated to her assistant, Terry Gray, and Coit says she is firewalling herself from her department’s work in this area. Some activists in the room expressed doubt in the possibility of such a firewall. It should be noted that Governor Gina Raimondo nominates all three EFSB board positions and that she has publicly backed Invenergy’s plan.

The two member board’s first order of business was to deal with an unprecedented number of motions for intervention, which if granted, would allow standing in these hearings for several groups and individuals. Invenergy objected to many of the motions, but did not object to allowing intervenor status for the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), the Burrillville Land Trust (BLT), The RI Department of Energy Resources, the RI Building Trades Council and National Grid. The board granted all but the Burrillville Land Trust intervenor status, and said that the decisions on the rest of the motions for intervention would be announced at a January 29 meeting.

One motion immediately granted to Invenergy allowed the company to keep certain “proprietary” financial information secret from the public. Between this and Invenergy’s eagerness to deny intervenor status, it becomes difficult to believe the company is truly committed to an open, public process.

I covered Invenergy’s objections to granting intervene status here. Since then the Building Trades filed for last minute intervenor status because their union would represent the vast majority of workers who will build the plant if approved. The Building Trades were granted limited intervenor status pertaining to employment.

Both the Conservation Law Foundation and the Burrillville Land Trust had motions before the board asking that Invenergy’s application be denied. BLT said bluntly that the Invenergy application contains erroneous information or deliberate omissions. There are, says BLT, no biodiversity impacts and no noise impacts cited in Invenergy’s application. BLT maintains that Invenergy underestimated the impact of their power plant on species diversity by half. The effects on birds and bats, so important to keep insect populations down, is likely to be severe. Invenergy’s estimated water impacts are 75% less than what BLT expects. Ultimately, says the BLT, the impact of this power plant will be felt for decades after its estimated 40-50 life span.

The CLF’s motion to dismiss was based in part on the Resilient Rhode Island Act, and on the fact that Invenergy’s application is incomplete. Under the law, says CLF attorney Jerry Elmer, “Incomplete applications must be rejected.”

Invenergy could not argue that their application was complete. They even admitted that they are still in negotiation for some permits. But Invenergy maintained that this is business as usual and not a reason to reject the application. Invenergy is pushing hard on this application, and want the EFSB to make a quick decision because if this application process drags on too long, they could be out hundreds of millions of dollars, said the CLF. But Attorney Elmer said that Invernergy needs to live with their business decisions, and the EFSB must deny incomplete objections even if Invenergy might face a monetary loss.

Chairperson Curran argued for Invenergy’s position, it seems to me, better than Invenergy’s own lawyers. Curran said that she thinks incomplete applications can move ahead despite what the CLF sees as important, material omissions. The application, says Curran, will be finished by the time the EFSB makes a decision, but Attorney Elmer countered that the statute and rules say that the application must be complete when filed, not when decided upon.

Board member Coit also argued passionately for Invenergy’s position. If Curran and Coit want to obey the law though, it would seem that they might have to reject Invenergy’s application, something they clearly didn’t want to do.

Invenergy’s lawyers were clearly pleased with Curran and Coit’s defense of their application. They assured the EFSB board that the board will have plenty of information about the power plant by the time they make their decision. The lawyers maintained that what isn’t in the application isn’t important. In fact, in all their years of practice, these lawyers say they have, “never seen such a detailed application.”

The CLF was next questioned about their reliance on the Resilient RI Act. Under the law, all state agencies shall follow this act. This means that the act applies to the EFSB and that the EFSB has the discretion to consider the climate change impact of the proposed energy plant.

Invenergy seems to feel that the Resilient RI Act is a toothless reminder about the importance of greenhouse gas reductions. They said that the act says nothing about their project and really doesn’t apply.

The second half of the hearing consisted of Invenergy’s sales pitch, a 51 page PowerPoint presentation that is both an ad for Invenergy (including slides touting the companies wind and solar projects, projects they seem to have no interest in bringing to Rhode Island) and plenty of information about the robustness of the company’s finances.

January 7, 2016January 7, 2016

Invenergy fails to gag activists on power plant intervention

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

During the last two days activists filed rebuttals with the Energy Facility Siting Board as they contest Invenergy’s attempt to suppress public input on its proposal to build a fracked-gas power plant proposal.

In a press release late last month Fossil Free Rhode Island cited as reasons for filing a motion for intervention with the Board:

The construction of the proposed power plant —part of the energy policy of team Raimondo— would slow down the transition to renewable energy.

As a recent report of the PERI Institute of UMass in Amherst states: “New investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy will generate more jobs for a given amount of spending than maintaining or expanding each country’s existing fossil fuel sectors.”

“Natural” gas has a larger greenhouse gas footprint than coal and oil. Clearly, team Raimondo is wrong on all counts: physics, economics and morality.

In response to Invenergy’s objections to their Motions for Intervention Sister Mary Pendergast, Occupy Providence and Fossil Free Rhode Island argue that the company misconstrues the rules according to which the Board operates.

The activists also take Invenergy to task on its claim that they lack sufficient interest to justify intervention. They remind the company of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), which declared that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act. They also remind Invenergy of the Endangerment Finding of 2009 of the Environmental Protection Agency that determined that greenhouse gas emissions endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

In a landmark environmental case (Payne & Buttler v. Providence Gas Co., 1910) the Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled that citizens can sue corporations for damages caused by “deleterious and poisonous substances.”

If these facts, rulings and liabilities do not constitute a direct interest, nothing will.

Occupy Providence, in its rebuttal, said:

Invenergy cannot credibly argue that Occupy Providence lacks sufficient interests to justify intervention in spite of the fact that “the proposed plant will produce greenhouse gases highly injurious to the 99% for the purpose of producing profits which will go almost entirely and certainly disproportionately to the 1%.”

Sister Mary Pendergast echoed the same sentiment and quoted from Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato Si’:

26. Many of those who possess more resources and economic or political power seem mostly to be concerned with masking the problems or concealing their symptoms, simply making efforts to reduce some of the negative impacts of climate change. However, many of these symptoms indicate that such effects will continue to worsen if we continue with current models of production and consumption. There is an urgent need to develop policies so that, in the next few years, the emission of carbon dioxide and other highly polluting gases can be drastically reduced, for example, substituting for fossil fuels and developing sources of renewable energy. Worldwide there is minimal access to clean and renewable energy.”

Two members of the Board serve at the pleasure of Governor Raimondo. That does not bode well for the impartiality of the Board. This is very troubling when it is clear that the Raimondo administration fails to understand the moral imperative to act on climate change.

Is there any ethical system under the Sun that holds that near-term profit is the ultimate standard? It is certainly not what is meant by the Affirmation of Humanism that proclaims:

We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.

Nor is it consistent with, as the Islamic Declaration on Global Climate Change puts it:

Re-focus their concerns from unethical profit from the environment, to that of preserving it and elevating the condition of the world’s poor.

Citizens of Rhode Island understand that intervention is fully justified and, in spite of Invenergys’ claim to the contrary, that the public interest is not adequately represented by a state government and its corporate allies who willfully act in violation of Article 1, Section 17 of the Rhode Island Constitution, the supreme law of the State which establishes the duty to provide for the conservation of the State’s air, water and land.

Note added after original post: Also the RI Democrats of America (RIPDA) have filed a reply to Invenergy’s objection to their motion for intervention. In their conclusion they write:

Invenergy’s desire to block RIPDA’s involvement should concern both the Board and the general public, as it suggests that Invenergy wishes to limit the discourse on this topic and stack the deck in its favor.

January 4, 2016March 31, 2016

CLF uses Resilient RI Act to block Invenergy’s fossil fuel 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 Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) today filed a Motion to Dismiss with the Rhode Island Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) against “the application of Invenergy for a permit to build a new 900-megawatt (MW) fossil-fuel power plant in Burrillville, Rhode Island.”

In a blog post, Jerry Elmer, Senior Attorney at CLF in Providence said that the Motion “relies in part on the provisions of the Resilient Rhode Island Act, enacted by the Rhode Island General Assembly in 2014… The Resilient Rhode Island Act declares that it is the public policy of Rhode Island to reduce annual statewide carbon emissions to 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, 45 percent by 2035, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2040.”

This is the first time the Resilient Rhode Island Act has been used in this manner.

“Invenergy’s application to the EFSB,” says Elmer, “is incomplete because the application fails to address these requirements.” The Resilient Rhode Island Act “created the EFSB and the EFSB’s own rules require that permit applications must be complete when they are filed, and that incomplete applications will be rejected.”

Elmer says that Invenergy’s application is especially troubling because the company, “wants to build two separate on-site oil tanks of one million gallons each – and, after coal, oil is the dirtiest, most polluting fuel used in New England to generate electricity…” More ominously, “Invenergy fails to mention how it plans to control any of its unhealthy air pollution, let alone its climate-warming carbon emissions.”

The CLF also explains in its motion, “why Invenergy is trying to stampede the EFSB into a hurried decision based on an incomplete application.”

Invenergy made a decision to take on a so-called ‘Capacity Supply Obligation‘ (CSO) from New England’s regional grid operator, ISO-New England, before Invenergy had any of permits required to build its proposed plant. The CSO means that, by June 1, 2019, Invenergy’s plant must be up and running and ready to supply energy to the regional grid.

“If Invenergy does have its plant operational by June 1, 2019, Invenergy gets tens of millions of dollars a year from the ISO-run energy markets in so-called ‘capacity payments.’ If Invenergy does not have its plant operational by June 1, 2019, the company stands to forfeit tens of millions of dollars of bonding it put up with the ISO.

“Not all companies that build power plants in New England choose to do things in that order. But Invenergy did – and now Invenergy should be forced to live with the consequences of its own decision.”

In a press release, Elmer said, “Spending 700 million dollars on a fuel source our own laws are making obsolete is as foolish as it is futile. New England is on a path to be carbon-free by 2050, and we have a legal and moral responsibility to see it through.”

Elmer asks interested members of the public to contact their leaders in government, such as Governor Raimondo, Nicholas Mattiello and Teresa Paiva Weed and let them know that you are opposed to the build up of fossil fuel infrastructure in Rhode Island.

December 29, 2015May 3, 2016

Invenergy attempts to sideline public input on proposed power plant in Burrillville

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

Lawyers for Invenergy have filed documents with the court objecting to the Motions for Intervention filed by several local property owners, activist groups and individuals. At contention is the proposed “Clear River Energy Center” (CREC), a 850-1000 megawatt power plant fueled by imported methane gas, to be built in Burrillville.

The Rhode Island Energy Facilities Siting Board (RI EFSB) has scheduled a preliminary hearing to consider Invenergy’s application for January 12 at 9:30am. Public commentary will not be heard at this hearing, only those parties and participants granted intervenor status by the Siting Board will have a voice in the proceedings.

In their court filing, Invenergy objected to the following groups and individuals’ motion for intervenor status: property owners Dennis and Kathy Sherman and Paul and Mary Boldue; activist and political groups Occupy Providence, Fossil Free RI, the Progressive Democrats of Rhode Island (RIPDA), Fighting Against Natural Gas (FANG) and Burrillville Against Spectra Expansion (BASE); and Sister Mary Pendergast, as an individual.

Invenergy does not have “specific objections” to the intervention requests of the Town of Burrillville, the State of RI Office of Energy Resources, National Grid, the Burrillville Land Trust or the Conservation Law Foundation.

Invenergy contends that intervention should only be granted to “Parties that have either statutory rights to intervene, directly affected interests that will not be adequately represented by other parties, or special public interests that compel intervention as a Party.”

Invenergy also objects to a separate motion “to extend the intervention period and to postpone the Preliminary Hearing” submitted by FANG and BASE.

In their motion requesting a 45 day extension of the deadline to intervene, FANG and BASE argued that, “At the December 9th Burrillville Town Council Meeting, several residents voiced their confusion with the intervenor process and expressed frustration with the lack of information provided about the process. Residents posed questions to the Town Council that the Council was not equipped to answer.” Note that the Town of Burrillville, though ill-equipped to answer rudimentary questions about the process at the Town Council meeting, is one of the groups that Invenergy says will “adequately” and “capably” represent the public interest.

The requested extension, maintains FANG and BASE, would allow “interested individuals and parties… more time to learn more about the intervention process, seek legal counsel and draft motions to intervene.”

The Siting Board, according to the motion filed by FANG and BASE, sent out “the first announcement for the public hearing… on November 17th to only sixteen parties, most of whom were local or state government agencies or elected officials. November 17th was one week before the Thanksgiving holiday. The deadline for filing as an intervenor was set as December 22rd, leaving two days before Christmas and one day before Eid Milad ulNabi (the observance and celebration of the Prophet Muhammad’s life). Also happening during the intervention period was the Hanukkah holiday from December 7th-14th.”

Residents affected by the proposed power plant’s siting were informed of the process with little time to seek counsel or determine if their interests were to be covered by approved intervenors. At the December 9 Burrillville Town Council meeting, Town Manager Michael Wood told Kathy Sherman that the town council’s job is to represent Burrillville, but that doesn’t mean that the town council will be representing every concern of every resident.

Yet in their court filing objecting to intervenor status being granted to Dennis and Kathy Sherman and Paul and Mary Boldue, Invenergy claims that their interests will be adequately protected by the Town of Burrillville as a Party.

Invenergy objected to Occupy Providence, Fossil Free RI and RIPDA being granted intervenor status because none of the groups is represented by a lawyer. The groups maintain that the rule cited by Invenergy is applicable to Parties, as legally defined, and not to participants. Further, Invenergy claims that the groups will not “be ‘directly affected’ by the project in a manner that will not be represented by other parties.”

Hilariously, one of the Parties that Invenergy claims will represent the interests of Occupy Providence, Fossil Free RI and RIPDA is National Grid, a company with a history of disregarding the concerns of Rhode Islanders and the environment in its endless craving for corporate profits.

Invenergy further claims that “interests related to carbon emissions and the state’s overall energy policy will be more than adequately represented by other Parties” including the Governor’s Office of Energy Resources. Governor Gina Raimondo has very publicly supported the proposed energy plant, so it is highly doubtful that the interests of Occupy Providence, Fossil Free RI and RIPDA will be represented by Parties advocating for her interests.

FANG and BASE were represented by a lawyer in their motion to intervene, but Invenergy says that these “grassroots organizations” will be “cabably represented” by the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), the Town of Burrillville, the DPUC and the RI Department of Environmental Management.

This is another strange statement, because when I emailed Josh Block, the press secretary for the Conservation Law Foundation, he wrote back saying, “By intervening in the pending Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) docket, CLF will present multiple arguments as to why Invenergy should be denied a permit to build an expensive, long-lived, carbon-emitting fossil-fuel power plant. A proposal such as this which makes little economic or environmental sense has unsurprisingly garnered opposition from a large number of stakeholders, each with unique interests and perspectives. Thus, any assertion that CLF’s participation in the docket is a reason for excluding other intervenors in the process is as misguided as the proposal itself.” (Italics mine)

2015-12-05 FANG Arrests Spectra 022 — Sister Mary Pendergast, in pink, being arrested

Sister Mary Pendergast, explaining her reasons for being arrested during a protest organized by FANG and BASE, said, “Pope Francis has called us all to an ecological conversion and he said it is essential and not an option.” Her motion to intervene has also been opposed by Invenergy, apparently, because her philosophical and theological concerns will be “adequately” and “capably” represented by the corporate and governmental interests of approved Parties, which is errant nonsense.

The fact is that the interests of the people will not be adequately represented in these proceedings if these motions for intervention are denied. The interests of the public are routinely and bureaucratically sidelined by relegating our voices to public commentary hearings with no real power or weight. Invenergy, though, depends on these public hearings to provide the appearance of public input where there is none, saying, “There will be ample opportunity… to provide comments, views, oppositions and data, in the form of public comment, in writing or in public testimony, at the appropriate time…”

This is how the voices of the public are silenced. We are relegated to separate, lesser forums, scheduled after the real decisions have been made. We are allowed to speak only when our objections have been rendered moot. It is only after our rights have been sacrificed to appease corporate power and after our world is destroyed that our voices will be heard, and that will be too late.

The motions for intervention should be granted.

December 7, 2015December 7, 2015

FANG and BASE crash Raimondo/Whitehouse press conference

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

Governor Gina Raimondo and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse found themselves confronted by activists from Burrillville Against Spectra Expansion (BASE) and Fighting Against Natural Gas (FANG) at a press conference to announce a new federal program to fund “major infrastructure projects like the 6-10 Connector in Providence.”

As US Representative David Cicilline finished up his short statement about the transportation funding, four activists, including Nick Katkevich of FANG and Kathy Martley of BASE entered the press conference area, under the 6-10 Connector behind Wes’ Rib House in Olneyville.

The four protesters held large signs and stayed quiet throughout Gina Raimondo’s short presentation. After the press conference ended, Kathy Martley tried to get the attention of the governor with a question about the new methane gas energy plant planned for Burrillville, but the Governor and Senator Whitehouse seemed intent on only answering the questions of the media present, and avoided engaging with the protesters.

In the video, Katkevich said to Whitehouse, “You’re not a climate champion, you’re supporting a fossil fuel power plant,” before asking, “You go to Nebraska, to fight the Keystone, but you can’t go to Burrillville?”

Whitehouse, “didn’t say a word” to the protesters, according to Martley by phone after the event was over. She was told by a Whitehouse aid that she and BASE had “given us enough information” on the pipeline expansion and new power plant. Martley complained to me that when she had previously approached Whitehouse, he had promised to meet with her, but that meeting never materialized. Today, Whitehouse simply ignored her and drove away.

Governor Raimondo, said Martley, “didn’t want to talk to us… she said ‘we’ll meet with you’ and I said, ‘we’ve tried to call your office and you’re still not making a date with us. Are you going to make a date with us when the power plant is already built?'”

This is the second time that Martley and BASE have attended a Raimondo press conference to ask about the methane infrastructure expansion projects in Burrillville. Back in September she crashed the governor’s press conference for the opening of the Linear Park. Today’s action comes on the heels of a large weekend rally and march against Spectra in Burrillville in which eight people were arrested.

August 11, 2015August 11, 2015

Air quality benefits outweigh fracked gas facility

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

The economic benefits from doing away with the burning of fossil fuels (including fracked gas) are tremendous in terms of “Air Quality Co-Benefits,” said James K. Boyce at the closing lecture at the Center for Popular Economics 2015 Summer Institute: Confronting Capitalism & Climate Crisis. “Add up those benefits” says Boyce, and you’ll find that the public health benefits are often twice the “social cost of carbon” which is the federal government’s measure of the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions.

Boyce is is a professor of economics at UMass Amherst researching development economics and environmental economics, with particular interests in the impacts of inequalities of wealth and power and the dynamics of conflict. His talk provided yet more reasons to oppose the construction of Clear River Energy Center, a fracked gas energy plant in Burrillville, Rhode Island.

The “vested interests of those who claim to own fossil fuels in the ground” says Boyce, “prevent good climate policy” from being enacted in the United States. It is not possible to design a strategy that can both prevent catastrophic climate change and appease the fossil fuel industry. (As Noel Healy said at a previous CPE talk, “There is no fixable flaw in the fossil fuel industry business plan. We are asking a company to go out of business.”)

But it is possible, stresses Boyce, “to design climate policies that do not impose costs but are beneficial in terms of public health and incomes.” These strategies, if instituted by the United States, would not put us at an economic disadvantage, but would have immediate economic benefits.

20,000 people die every year as a result of air pollution in the form of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and benzene. The health impacts include asthma, impeded brain development, stroke and cardio-vascular disease, among many more. Treating these diseases costs money. Add to that the value of a statistical life, that grubby little number insurance companies have determined we are each worth, (about $7 million,) and therefore the costs to society of preventible death, diseases and conditions due to fossil fuel emissions is vast.

Another aspect of Boyce’s talk concerned the placement of fossil fuel burning plants. It is not true that carbon is carbon and that it doesn’t matter where in the world they are eliminated. “Co-pollutants are localized and specific communities are influenced by these pollutants.”

Again, this can be applied to Burrillville and the proposed fracked gas plant. Before the new fracked gas plant was proposed, Burrillville was facing a huge expansion of the natural gas pipeline. Back in February I listened to Kathy Martley from BASE (Burrillville Against Spectra Expansion) say, “Burrillville is Rhode Island’s sacrifice zone.”

Martley is also concerned about the chemicals the pumping station is using. Fracked gas is dirtier, she says, and requires an additional 25 chemical additives to make it run smoothly through the pipeline. Many of these chemicals are industrial secrets, meaning there is no information available to the public as to what they are. In the event of a leak, Martley and her family and neighbors may be exposed to an unknown toxic brew. These concerns are no doubt exasperated with the addition of a new fracked gas burning plant.

This is no idle concern of a local resident crying NIMBY. Ted Nesi reports that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is undecided on the matter. Hisspokesman Seth Larson said, “The senator has significant concerns about methane leaks during natural gas production and elsewhere in the supply chain and has been urging EPA to pin down the size of the problem and take action to address it.”

This jibes with a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) that conludes that while “the global warming emissions from [fracked gas] combustion are much lower than those from coal or oil… Emissions from smokestacks and tailpipes… do not tell the full story.”

“The drilling and extraction of natural gas from wells and its transportation in pipelines,” says the UCS, “results in the leakage of methane, a far more potent global warming gas than CO2.” And though fracked gas burning plants yield lower emissions than coal or oil, “Some areas where drilling occurs have experienced increases in concentrations of hazardous air pollutants and two of the six “criteria pollutants” — particulate matter and ozone plus its precursors — regulated by the EPA because of their harmful effects on health and the environment.”

Rhode Island has to decide if it is moral, given that there are clean energy solution available that do not rely on fossil fuels, to outsource our pollution and attendant health risks to those distant fields where desperate communities allow fracking. We have to decide if it is moral to make Burrillville, RI into a sacrifice zone, where, long after natural gas has gone away and the Earth endures a 4 or 5 degree temperature increase due to our continued reliance on apocalyptic technology, we will be leaving a toxic Superfund site to the next generation.

In the video below you can watch nearly the entirety of Boyce’s talk, where besides speaking about the health risks of fossil fuels and the economic advantages of avoiding them, he also outlines his “cap and dividend” approach to carbon reduction.

August 5, 2015

Protestors combat fracking in Rhode Island with Burriville 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

After a fittingly stormy Tuesday morning, Governor Gina Raimondo announced a controversial plan at the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce to open a natural gas power plant in Burriville amid environmental protests and citizen complaints.

The plant, called the Clear River Energy Center, would utilize fracking to generate energy with natural gas. Fracking is a process that involves drilling into the earth, and then shooting a high-pressure water mixture at the rock to release the natural gas inside. Environmentalists have opposed the practice for a number of reasons. First, the process uses huge amounts of water that must be transported to the site. Second, many worry that dangerous chemicals used in the process may contaminate groundwater around the site. There are also concerns that fracking causes small earthquakes.

The company that is sponsoring and privately funding the $700 million project, Invenergy, says that the practice is clean and environmentally friendly because the new plant will prevent older, less efficient plants from emitting pollutants like carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulphur oxides into the air.

Invenergy has predicted $280 million in energy savings for Rhode Islanders once the energy center is up and running. There would be an overall economic impact of $1.3 billion between 2016 and 2034. Roughly 300 construction jobs would be added to the state’s workforce to build the facility, over a 30 month time period. There would also be 25-30 permanent, skilled positions to actually run the center.

“The construction of this clean energy generation facility will create hundreds of jobs while delivering more affordable and reliable energy to our businesses and homes,” Governor Raimondo said. “We are tackling our regional energy challenges, committing to cleaner energy systems in the long-term, and putting Rhode Islanders back to work.”

Even with this promise of clean energy, there are still many staunch opponents to the proposed facility. Fighting Against Natural Gas, or FANG, held an emergency rally in front of the Chamber of Commerce as Governor Raimondo unveiled her plan. Some even believed the facility to be a “rape” of Burriville’s air, water, and soil.

Robert Malin from Rhode Island’s chapter of the Sierra Club attended the protest, in opposition to the proposed facility. Malin believes that the government has been less than forthcoming with details for the project, and shouldn’t be trusted.

More protestors rallying against Burriville fracking.

“The Governor has been saying that she doesn’t know anything about gas or fracking, and that this whole thing is just one little expansion that they’re doing, and by the way, we don’t have any money to build out the renewables, it’s a wish. Maybe in 20 years we’ll get around to actually doing it,” he said. “Then the next thing you know, they can dig into their pockets, they can pull out $700 million, and this thing that they’re planning, had to be planned in advance. They kept this whole thing under the table. Why wasn’t the public able to decide whether we want an explosive power plant building, bringing fracked gas, a deadly practice that was outlawed in New York state, that’s what we’re bringing.”

Malin explained that even though many don’t consider natural gas a fossil fuel, believing it lacks a carbon footprint, the energy source actually leaves what he called a “ghost footprint,” and still contributes to global warming.

“You’re trying to track a colorless, odorless gas,” he said. “Unfortunately, when it gets into the atmosphere, it’s called an accelerant to global warming. So, if you can imagine, you’ve got a big wood fire, and you take some gasoline and throw it on the fire. It flares up really quick. So if you’re not right there when you’re measuring it, when it flares up, then it’s very hard to track. The bad new is that it has the same carbon footprint as other fossil fuels, like coal and oil when it’s done.”

Stephen Dahl, from Fossil Free Rhode Island, said that Raimondo’s plan is short term, and that there are better options and avenues for the state to undertake.

“I think that is a very short gain that they are playing. In the short term, we’ll have jobs. For the longer term, if we follow countries like Germany and Scandinavia, and their mix of energies, in which we can build a transition to 100 percent wind, water, and solar for all purposes, both residential and commercial, here in Rhode Island, by 2050,” he said. “I understand that she has a limited term in office, and she wants to get something done. The way she’s chosen forward, though, is unfortunately, that short-term prospect, which will bring us more catastrophes. So, I object to it.”

Raimondo, and Invenergy’s Founder and CEO Michael Polsky both insisted that fracking, in combination with renewable energy sources, is only one of many puzzle pieces that can be put together to help slow climate change. According to Invenergy, the Clear River Energy Center will add more than 900 megawatts of new, cleaner energy to the regional energy grid, and will displace older, less efficient plants. It will also invest in well treatment and system upgrades, which will benefit 1,200 Pascoag Utility District water customers by contracting on a long-term basis for industrial water supply. Commercial benefits for the town of Burriville include millions of dollars in tax revenue, as well as the reduction of the property tax burden for homeowners.

Once approved, the Clear River Energy Center will begin construction in 2016, with operations scheduled to begin by summer 2019.

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