CLF – Page 2 – RI Future

June 14, 2016

CLF: Invenergy lied to public at EFSB hearing 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

John Niland, director of development for Invenergy, knowingly mislead both the public and the EFSB, the board tasked with deciding the fate of the Burrillville power plant proposal, at a public hearing on the matter, according to the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF).

The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) today filed two expert witness testimonies with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) that reveals Invenergy representatives knowingly presented false facts and figures at a public Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) hearing in Burrillville attended by 700 people.

The CLF testimony also provides further evidence that the electricity produced by a proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel burning power plant in Burrillville is not needed in New England.

Invenergy’s estimates of consumer savings from the proposed plant are grossly inflated and inaccurate, says the CLF. Invenergy claims the power plant will save between $118 to $120 million for ratepayers. The actual number, according to CLF’s witnesses, is between 0 and $36 million.

Christopher Stix, first witness

The first testimony is from Christopher Stix, a volunteer financial analyst for the CLF providing financial and market analysis for CLF’s energy initiatives, specifically in the area of power plant licensing and electric and gas transmission. The testimony is lengthy and technical (and can be downloaded at the link above) but the actual conclusions of the testimony are fairly easy to present.

False Facts

Stix claims in his testimony that Invenergy knowingly presented false information at the March 31, 2016 EFSB hearing at the Burrillville High School.

“…on March 31, in front of 700 people, Invenergy presented in two different ways… information that Invenergy knew, at the time, was false. First, the words “$280 million in Savings” appear in big, green letters on Slide 12 of Invenergy’s presentation… Second, the false information was emphasized by Invenergy’s John Niland, who said, “Talking about ratepayer savings, the analysis we’ve done looks at what happens to the cost of power to the region when you put in a plant like this. – – [T]hat’s really what the $280 million number represents.” [EFSB March 31, 2016 Hearing Transcript. page 16, lines 8-11; 15-17.)

“…eventually Invenergy backed off its wrong assertion of $180 – $120 million in capacity savings in just FCA-10. In Ryan Hardy’s April 22 testimony, page 13, lines 20-21, Invenergy touts ‘Capacity cost savings to Rhode Island ratepayers . . . to be $170 million from 2019 to 2022, or $42 million annually on average.’ It is important to note here that in his testimony, Mr. Hardy gives no specific figure at all for projected capacity savings from just FCA-10. Instead, he sticks with a vague average over a period of several years.

“Mr. Hardy does not acknowledge in his April 22 testimony that his figure had changed radically from his sworn testimony before the EFSB on January 12, 2016, when he stated under oath that ‘the savings from capacity costs alone is nearly 212 million…’” [January 12, 2016 Transcript. page 164, lines 6-14; and Slide 24.]

“Third, and importantly, nothing changed between March 31, when Invenergy publicly presented figures that were grossly wrong, and April 22, when Invenergy presented very different figures. The relevant FCA had occurred on February 8. Invenergy acquired no new information between March 31 and April 22. Thus, there was absolutely no reason for Invenergy to have presented inaccurate information to the EFSB and Burrillville residents on March 31.”

Power plant not needed

Early on, Stix was asked if the New England electricity grid needs the proposed Invenergy plant.

Stix replied, “neither the New England electricity grid, nor the ISO, needs Invenergy in order to keep the grid reliable. Overall, in FCA-lO, the ISO procured fully 1,416 MW more than its ICR. Even if you subtract all 485 MW of the CSO acquired by Invenergy, the ISO would have still over-procured 931MW. And, here in the SENE zone, the ISO procured 1,321 MW more than its LSR Again, even if you subtract all 485 MW of the CSO acquired by Invenergy, the ISO would still have over-procured 836 MW in the zone The result of FCA-10 shows that the generation capacity that the Invenergy plant would bring to the electricity grid is not needed in Rhode Island, and is not needed in New England.”

Inaccurate consumer savings

Stix testified that “[t]he irrefutable, bottom-line fact is that Mr. Hardy and [PA Consulting Group] wrongly predicted savings to Rhode Island ratepayers,just from capacity, and just from FCA-l0, to be between $118 and $120 million dollars. The actual figure was somewhere between zero and $36 million. Mr. Hardy’s projected figure was 272% of the actual figure, and maybe much, much more than that. To put it another way, it is just not true to say that a predicted result of $118 million in ratepayer savings in one year “is very close to” ratepayer savings of between zero and $36 million. I doubt very much if Rhode Island ratepayers consider $118 million in one-year savings to be “very close” to zero to $36 million. And I doubt that the PUC will view it that way, either.”

Robert Fagan, second witness

The second witness testimony presented by the CLF today is from Robert Fagan, a Principal Associate at Synapse Energy Economics, a research and consulting firm specializing in electricity industry regulation, planning and analysis.

Fagan also says the proposed power plant is not needed in both the short, medium and long terms. He says there is no “near-to-medium term reliability need for the proposed Invenergy plant,” pointing out that “existing and projected energy efficiency and behind-the-meter solar PV resources in New England more than supplant the energy output of the proposed plant and support a reliable electric sector in Rhode Island and New England without the proposed plant” and “there is no longer-term reliability need for the proposed plant.”

Fagan says that “Rhode Island and New England net loads… exhibit declining trends, contrary to the applicant’s assertions.” Invenergy claims that the ISO-New England Forward Capacity Markets indicate need, but as we have seen, they do not.

Further, Invenergy offers, “no evidence of any longer-term reliability or other need for the proposed plant. They incorrectly inflate the energy forecast need for Rhode Island and New England. Their narrative on alternative energy resources, including energy efficiency and renewable energy resources, is completely absent of any quantitative analysis of the effect of a portfolio of energy efficiency and renewable resource supply as an alternative to the proposed plant.

Looking to the longer term future of energy in Rhode Island, Fagan says, “When considering energy efficiency and alternative new resources including behind-the-meter solar PV, other solar PV (utility scale), onshore wind, offshore wind, Canadian hydro, demand response, and storage alternatives – in addition to existing capacity resources and a recently strengthened New England transmission system – near-term and long-term reliability of Rhode Island and New England electric power sectors can be assured without reliance on the proposed power plant.”

Fagan also says that, “The applicant’s failure to present any evidence of a long-term reliability need for the plant is significant, because absent such a need, I don’t see how this proposed plant fits with Rhode Island state energy policy that, according to the applicant, emphasizes increasing energy efficiency, integration of renewable energy into the system, and achieving reductions in greenhouse gases.”

June 8, 2016June 8, 2016

Burrillville Town Council opposes Keable/Fogarty power plant bill

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

The Burrillville Town Council opposes legislation moving through the State House that would give local residents greater say on the tax agreement between the town and the proposed fracked gas power plant.

“The ill-conceived legislation before the General Assembly that purports to give residents a voice in the matter – in fact does the opposite,” said a letter released to RIPR’s Ian Donnis last night. “It weakens the Town Council’s ability to protect its residents and obtain financial compensation for hosting the proposed power plant.

The documents were released to Donnis by Dyana Koelsch, retained by the Town Council to handle public relations on their behalf. Koelsch, a former journalist-turned-public relations consultant, told me in a phone conversation last week she was retained by the Town Council to facilitate better communication between the Town Council and local residents.

The release of these documents seems to have come some time after the House passed Representative Cale Keable‘s bill, H8420 Sub A, which, if it becomes law, will allow the voters of Burrillville the opportunity to approve or reject any proposed tax treaty the Town Council makes with an power plant by popular vote. In recent days opposition to this bill has been ramping up, with Invenergy purchasing a full page ad in the Providence Journal on Saturday, an op-ed co-signed by Laurie White of the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce and Michael Sabitoni of the Rhode Island Building and Construction Trades Council on Sunday, and a bellicose tirade on the Journal’s editorial page yesterday.

Despite the opposition of business leaders and unions the Keable bill passed the floor 64 to 7 as Burrillville residents applauded. You can watch the vote below and see the reaction of Burrillville residents below. The difference between the votes reported above and the votes pictured is due to some legislators entering their votes late.

The release of the Burrillville Town Council letter opposing the Keable bill provoked a flurry of responses on social media. At about 10:30pm Burrillville City Councillor David Place confirmed that the letter was indeed accurate when he commented on Burrillville resident and power plant opponent Jeremy Bailey’s Facebook page.

The reaction from Burrillville residents has been negative and angry:

“I have NEVER seen such political BS in my life!!!“
“Has to be a back room deal going on ! Obviously representing Invenergy’s interest over the citizens!!!!“
“This is very disappointing and kicks us in the gut ! These council people are traitors and sneaky too, it’s not fair to the towns people!“

It’s unclear when the Town Council decided to write the letter, or if that decision was made at a public meeting.

The timing of the release is strange, since tomorrow evening there is a Town Council meeting scheduled, with public comment. Past Burrillville Town Council meetings have been contentious. Tomorrow night’s promises to be explosive. Why the Town Council would choose to invite the approbation of their constituents is a mystery. There is talk of a recall election for the four Town Councillors not up for re-election this fall.

The most startling thing about the documents released is that they contain details of the town’s negotiated tax deal with Invenergy, details that the Town Council has previously stated must remain secret while being negotiated. Though the tax deal is not yet done, the Town Council says there is “an agreement in principle on the following:”

$2.9 million upfront payment – $1.2 million in guaranteed payments even if the EFSB denies the application
$92 million – $180 million guaranteed payments over the next 20 years
Protection for property owners near the proposed power plant site through a property value agreement
Fully binds future owners if the plant is sold or otherwise transferred
Protection for Town residents into the future by locking in place a decommissioning plan

The Town Council claims that the legislation weakens the Council’s ability to protect its residents and obtain financial compensation for hosting the proposed power plant, strips the Town Council’s negotiating leverage that can force Invenergy to compensate the town, and jeopardizes efforts to put financial safeguards in place for residents near the power plant and compromises an agreement for the decommissioning of the plant.

I reached out to Jerry Elmer, a Senior Attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation, overnight and he was kind enough to send me some notes on the various documents, which I will quote in full beneath the page he references.

Elmer said, in summary, “The bottom line is this: The members of the Town Council of Burrillville know, with absolute certainty, that the sweetheart deal they are negotiating with Invenergy would be overwhelmingly rejected by the voters of Burrillville if the voters of Burrillville got the right to vote on it. The members of the Town Council are correct in their assessment. That is why they are urging that the Keable-Fogarty Bill be rejected.”

From Jerry Elmer: “Document 2, page 1, bullets at the bottom: Town Council claims it has remained “neutral” on whether the plant should be built in order not to taint its comments to the EFSB. Two things must be said about this. First (and maybe more important), these documents show that the Town Council has not remained neutral, and that the Town Council very much wants to enter into a Tax Treaty with Invenergy. The Town Council is urging defeat of the Keable-Fogarty bill which would give the people of Burrillville the right to vote on such a (possible, future) tax treaty. That is not “remaining neutral.” Second, the Town Council has (very seriously) misunderstood what kind of “neutrality” is required of it by Rhode Island law. The Town Council has consistently refused to discuss the proposed Invenergy plant, even at public meetings, called pursuant to the state’s Open Meetings Act, even with a stenographer present. The Town Council pretends that this is being “neutral,” but this is merely ignoring constituents. And, crucially, this refusal to discuss the Invenergy proposal in open meetings is not required by any Rhode Island statute, law, rule, or regulation, including the state’s Open Records Act.”

From Jerry Elmer: “Document 2, page 1, bullets at the bottom: Town Council says that the purpose of the tax treaty is “to properly compensate Burrillville” if the Invenergy plant is built. However, what constitutes a “proper” level of compensation is a judgment call, about which reasonable people may disagree. The main effect of the Keable-Fogarty Bill would be to return that judgment call to the people of Burrillville.”

From Jerry Elmer: “Document 2, page 3, bullet half way down page [above], Town Council says: Having a tax treaty is a “guarantee of full taxability” of Invenergy. This is factually incorrect, and it is inconceivable to me that the Town Council is not fully aware of that fact. There is today, in the Town of Burrillville, a background, already-existing tax law that would cover this power plant (just as every municipality in Rhode Island, and indeed the United States, has an existing, background law on how to tax the real estate of individuals and businesses). The only reason that Invenergy wants a tax treaty with the Town of Burrillville is in order to get a different, lower tax rate. This makes sense: Invenergy will not negotiate with the Town for a higher tax rate; no business would do that, because it makes zero business sense. The reason that Invenergy would not negotiate for a higher tax rate is that Invenergy, without any negotiations at all, could get the currently existing tax rate. The only purpose of a tax treaty is to give the applicant (here, Invenergy) a lower tax rate than the existing one. This is true of this tax treaty, just as it has been true of every tax treaty since tax treaties were invented. In other words, when the Town Council says that a tax treaty is meant to be a “guarantee of full taxability” that statement is just factually incorrect.”

From Jerry Elmer: “Document 2, page 2, Town Council says that having a tax treaty in place “eliminates costly appraisals” and “eliminates volatility in future appraisals.” On these two points, the Town Council is speaking the literal truth, but in a deeply misleading way. These statements of the Town Council are factually accurate, but what is left unsaid is that, if the Keable-Fogarty Bill is defeated, that defeat will eliminate the right and ability of the people of Burrillville to vote on a Tax Treaty that may be reached between the Town Council and Invenergy. Let me use an analogy: I am threatening to murder you in cold blood. Before I do it, I tell you to think about the many “advantages” of being dead: you’ll save money on food, you’ll save money on rent, and you’ll never again go to a movie that you end up not liking. What I am saying is literally true, but what I am saying is misleading (in the extreme). So, too, with the Town Council statement. A tax treaty would eliminate costly appraisals — and would eliminate the right of the people of Burrillville to vote on a sweetheart deal reached between the Town Council and the people of Burrillville.”

Tomorrow the Senate takes up their version of the bill, S3037 in Senate Judiciary at 2:30pm in room 313 in the State House. The Burrillville Town Council meets tomorrow evening at 7:00pm in the Town Council Chambers, Town Building, 105 Harrisville Main St., Harrisville.

June 7, 2016June 7, 2016

CLF supports power plant bill, calls out ‘scare tactics’

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

2016-05-26 Burrillville at the State House 021 — Paul Fogarty addresses constituents at the State House

The Conservation Law Fund (CLF) supports S-3037, by Senators Fogarty, Nesselbush, and Kettle, and respectfully urges passage of this bill. This bill addresses an important issue pertaining to the proposal by Invenergy to build a new 900 MW fossil-fuel power plant in Burrillville, RI.

CLF has considerable first-hand knowledge of the Invenergy proposal. CLF is the only environmental organization that has been admitted as a full party before the Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) in Docket SB 20 15-06, which is the Invenergy permitting proceeding. CLF is the only environmental organization that has been admitted as a full party in the Public Utilities Commission Docket # 4606 that is considering issues pertaining to Invenergy (including whether the proposed plant is even needed and what the ratepayer impacts might be).

In connection with these legal proceedings, CLF has received and reviewed thousands of pages of evidence, including significant quantities of confidential information pertaining to the Invenergy proposal. CLF urges passage of Senator Fogarty’s bill because it addresses a crucially important issue that is not being addressed anywhere else — and, indeed, cannot be addressed anywhere else: the matter of voter approval for tax treaties.

I respectfully direct your attention to the portion of this bill beginning on page 3, line 34, and running through page 4.

Under long-existing law, R.I. General Laws § 44-3-30, the Town Council of Burrillville has the legal ability to enter into tax agreements, called “tax treaties,” with the proponent or owner of electricity-generating plants within the Town. Senator Fogarty’s bill would make one crucially important change to this law. The bill would retain the long-existing power of the Burrillville Town Council to enter into these tax treaties — but would require voter approval of such treaties.

This bill is good for democratic process.

The only argument that I have personally heard from Invenergy’s lawyers against this provision in the Fogarty Bill is that, by requiring such voter approval for tax treaties, the Bill would stymie any and all infrastructure projects in the state. I was even told that passage of the Fogarty Bill would prevent small projects from going forward at the Johnston Land Fill.

This is untrue. The underlying, existing statute that the Fogarty Bill modifies pertains only to Burrillville, and only to electricity generators in Burrillville. The Bill would have no application and no effect anywhere else in the state.

Moreover, if enacted, the Fogarty Bill would not stop the Invenergy plant from being built — nor even prevent the Burrillville Town Council from entering into a tax treaty with Invenergy. The only thing the Fogarty Bill would do is require that any such tax treaty be voted on by the people of Burrillville.

And, in the event that such a tax treaty were turned down by Burrilliville voters, even that would not necessarily stop the Invenergy plant from being built. The tax treaty that was voted down would not take effect, but Invenergy could seek to negotiate a different tax treaty, or could even build the plant without a tax treaty.

In short, the scare tactics used by Invenergy and its allies to oppose this provision of the Fogarty Bill are just not true.

I want to address one other provision in this bill: the section on page 1, lines 7 to 14, that would enlarge the membership of the EFSB. When this bill was heard in the House Environment Committee on Thursday, May 26, National Grid expressed reservations about expanding the membership of the EFSB, and said that so expanding the EFSB could potentially jeopardize tens (or even hundreds) of millions of dollars of pending infrastructure projects.

CLF has long had reservations about the way the current EFSB is constituted; thus, CLF well understands the impulse to change how the EFSB is constituted. Nevertheless, CLF believes that the most critically important portion of Senator Fogarty’s bill is the portion on page 4 requiring voter approval of tax treaties. For that reason, if there is significant opposition to the provision on page 1 of the bill (changing the membership of the EFSB). CLF respectfully urges that you strip out that latter provision and pass the rest of the bill.

[This post was created with an advanced copy of Jerry Elmer’s testimony for tomorrow’s Senate Judiciary hearing.]

May 21, 2016May 21, 2016

CLF’s Jerry Elmer: Keable Bill is ‘excellent’ for power plant opponents

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

The bill Representative Cale Keable introduced to the RI House that seeks to overhaul Rhode Island General Law 44-4-30 by giving the residents of Burrillville more power over whether or not Invenergy‘s proposed fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant gets built in their town has been reviewed by Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) Senior Attorney Jerry Elmer, and his verdict is clear: “Despite its imperfections,” says Elmer, “the Keable Bill is an excellent bill that ought to be supported by enviros, because – for the two separate reasons outlined above — it makes it much less likely that the Invenergy plant will be built.”

You can read House Bill 8240 here.

Elmer’s analysis is worth reading in its entirety:

Main Point of the Bill – The main point of the bill appears on page 4. Under existing law (RIGL 44-4-30) the Burrillville Town Council has the power to set the property tax rate for Invenergy at any level it wants. Thus, under existing law, the Town Council could give Invenergy a sweetheart deal by charging one dollar per decade; or the Town Council could drive Invenergy out of Burrillville by charging a million dollars per nano-second. The Keable bill changes this by adding the requirement that, whatever the Town Council does, that arrangement must be approved by the voters of Burrillville in a voter referendum. This is a very, very good thing because it makes it much less likely that the plant will be built. In fact, this is true for two separate reasons:

First, many people have been worried that the Burrillville Town Council will make a secret sweetheart deal with Invenergy, and that the people of Burrillville will be cut out of the process. People have been very worried about this, because the people of Burrillville are overwhelmingly opposed to the Invenergy proposal, but the Town Council seems (much) more favorably inclined toward Invenergy. If passed, this law would make it impossible for the Town Council to cut the people of Burrillville out of the process. Any deal the Town Council makes with Invenergy would have to be approved by the voters; and the voters could vote down any tax treaty with Invenergy that does not ensure, with 100% certainty, that the plant is not built.

Second, even the presence of this law on the books creates uncertainty for Invenergy – at least until a tax treaty is negotiated and approved by public referendum. This uncertainty will probably make it more difficult (and maybe impossible) for Invenergy to obtain the necessary funding (loans) to start construction. After all, what lender would put up hundreds of millions of dollars knowing that the Town could tax Invenergy out of existence? Importantly, in a situation like this, delay (“mere delay”) can actually kill the project. As CLF argued at the [Energy Facilities Siting Board] EFSB, Invenergy made the election to obtain a Capacity Supply Obligation (CSO) in the ISO’s Forward Capacity Auction (FCA) on February 8, 2016, before Invenergy had the necessary state permits. That CSO begins on June 1, 2019, and it comes with huge financial penalties if Invenergy is not up and running by that time. If Invenergy is delayed in starting construction by even 12 months, Invenergy may be forced to sell out of its CSO (in an effort to avoid penalties) and abandon this project.

Note, importantly, that what I say in that last paragraph is true even if the EFSB grants Invenergy a permit! In other words, if passed, the Keable bill provides a separate and independent way of stopping Invenergy, a way that works even if CLF’s litigation against Invenergy in the EFSB fails.

In this sense, the Keable bill is clearly good for democracy. Up until now, many people have feared that the Town Council would secretly cut a sweetheart deal with Invenergy, despite overwhelming citizen opposition within the Town. If passed, the Keable bill would make that impossible.

Changing the Make-Up of the EFSB – The Keable bill would also change the make-up of the EFSB by expanding the EFSB from three to nine members. (Bill, page 1, lines 7 to 14) Currently two of the three members of the EFSB sit at the pleasure of the Governor (and this provision in the Keable Bill is probably intended to change that status quo). I am skeptical about how useful this provision would be, even leaving aside the unwieldiness of a nine-member EFSB. Note that two EFSB members now sit at the pleasure of the Governor. One of the proposed new members under the Keable Bill is the chairperson of the Commerce Corporation, who also sits at the pleasure of the Governor. Of the three “public members” to be added, the union representative will reliably support all new power plant construction, and the person “experienced in energy issues” may very well also reliably support new power plants. That would be five members of a nine-member EFSB that would reliably support new power plants. While well-intentioned, this provision is probably not a good way to stop the Invenergy proposal, or to constitute a better EFSB.

Considering a Town Council Resolution – The Keable bill contains this sentence (page 3, lines 18-19): “Prior to making a decision, the board [EFSB] shall take into consideration any town or city council resolution regarding the application.” This is toothless – for two reasons. First, “take into consideration” means “think about” but not necessarily respect or act upon. Second, as we know in this case, the Town Council is much more favorable toward Invenergy than the people of the Town.

Nevertheless, I want to be clear: Despite its imperfections, the Keable Bill is an excellent bill that ought to be supported by enviros, because – for the two separate reasons outlined above — it makes it much less likely that the Invenergy plant will be built.

What are the chances of passage? – Of course, the honest answer is, “I don’t know.” On the one hand, in order to have been introduced this late in the General Assembly session (three months after the filing deadline for new bills), the bill must have some support from leadership. On the other hand, if passed, this bill would go a long way to un-doing the whole purpose, the raison d’etre, of the state’s Energy Facility Siting Act that created the EFSB. That statute was designed to take the power to stop a proposal like Invenergy’s out of the hands of the local people (who could be motivated by base NIMBYism) and put it into the hands of the EFSB. This bill (not so much the change in EFSB membership, but the tax treaty referendum requirement) goes a long way to un-doing that purpose. Also, there is, as of yet, no Senate-side analogue of the Keable Bill in the House. Also, remember this: Governor Raimondo is a huge supporter of the Invenergy proposal going forward (because of the job-creation aspects). Even if the bill passes the General Assembly, Gov. Raimondo could still veto the bill – especially if her analysis of the bill’s real-world effects jibes with my own. My analysis is that, if passed, the bill would make it much less likely that the Invenergy plant will ever be built. If Gov. Raimondo agrees with me, she might veto the bill for that very reason.

Hearing on Thursday – Although not yet posted on the General Assembly website, Rep. Keable believes that his bill will be heard this Thursday in the House Environment Committee, at the Rise of the House (some time after 4 PM).

May 17, 2016May 17, 2016

Conservation Law Foundation sues ExxonMobil

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

Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) announced at a press conference today that it has served formal notice of a lawsuit against ExxonMobil for its decades-long campaign to discredit climate change and knowingly endanger people and communities. An exposé last September by InsideClimate News revealed that ExxonMobil has engaged in a deliberate cover-up of sound climate science for more than thirty years, prompting CLF to launch its own investigation. CLF’s work revealed that the corporation’s deceit spilled onto New England soil and is subjecting local communities to undisclosed and potentially catastrophic risks in violation of both the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

“ExxonMobil’s strategy of publicly denying the very risks its scientists have known for decades has direct impact on Greater Boston communities,” said CLF President Brad Campbell. “ExxonMobil knowingly and unlawfully misled regulators about whether its Everett facility can withstand rising seas, more intense precipitation, and other climate impacts without spewing oil and other toxic pollutants into adjoining neighborhoods, the Mystic River, and the Boston Harbor. Today’s lawsuit – the first of its kind – aims to hold ExxonMobil accountable for decades of dishonesty and require that the Everett facility meet the legal standards for climate-readiness.”

At today’s press conference on the shores of the Mystic River, Campbell stood with numerous local leaders and activists in declaring that ExxonMobil’s irresponsible and illegal actions would no longer be allowed to go unanswered.

Roseann Bongiovanni, Chelsea Green Space environmental justice advocate, commented, “I’ve lived in Chelsea my entire life, and for all that time there’s been imbalance between community members who desperately want waterfront access and the industries that dominate the water’s edge. A decade ago, ExxonMobil spilled thousands of gallons of oil into our river and denied its wrongdoing for months until confronted and forced to pay by the Department of Justice. Today, we have a greater understanding of the full extent of ExxonMobil’s climate denial and we have another opportunity to show the world that we won’t stand for it.”

In March of this year, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey joined a coalition of 17 attorneys general seeking to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for campaigns to deceive customers, shareholders, and the public about climate risk. While CLF is the first organization officially to begin a civil lawsuit against ExxonMobil for this deceit, many other legal actions are likely to follow.

EkOngKar Singh (EK) Khalsa, President of the Mystic River Watershed Association, added, “The Mystic is one of our state’s great treasures, where hundreds of thousands of fish spawn, wildlife seek refuge and eagles fly overhead. Unfortunately, we continuously battle against a history of industrial contamination. It is time for ExxonMobil to step up to the plate and take responsibility for the ongoing harm it is causing our river and our community.”

CLF’s trial team for the case will include nationally renowned attorney Allan Kanner of the Louisiana-based Kanner & Whitely, whose firm has represented states and other plaintiffs in landmark cases against major oil companies, including claims arising from BP’s Deepwater Horizon spill.

Campbell added, “A generation ago, the nation was appalled by the indifference to public safety and the environment that resulted in a drunk ship captain grounding the Exxon Valdez on Alaska’s Bligh Reef, spilling millions of gallons of crude oil into the Prince William Sound. Today in Everett, we must hold ExxonMobil accountable once again for its indifference to the public in the face of potential catastrophe.”

An interview with Roseann Bongiovanni, Chelsea Green Space environmental justice advocate, about a previous oil spill by ExxonMobil in the Mystic, the corporation’s denial of any wrongdoing, and the enormous cost to the Chelsea community and economy.

Another interview with Roseann Bongiovanni speaking about the respiratory problems and other serious health issues caused by air quality levels that far exceed the EPA’s standards for safety.

An interview with EkOngKar Singh (EK) Khalsa, President of the Mystic River Watershed Association, talking about the importance of the Mystic River to the local communities and the neighborhood impacts from continued pollution.

This video from 2007 shows polluted water flowing from a large pipe into the Island End River after a rain event. ExxonMobil discharges polluted water through this pipe every day of the year— up to 280 gallons per minute during dry weather and much more during rain events. The pollutants ExxonMobil is discharging are extremely hazardous, and ExxonMobil’s discharges often grossly exceed the waste limits set out in its discharge permit. The Island End River is water quality impaired, as is the Mystic River into which it flows, and ExxonMobil is contributing to those impairments by discharging toxic pollutants on a daily basis.

April 15, 2016May 3, 2016

Burrillville Town Council can stand up to Invenergy

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

The revelation that the Burrillville Town Council, under the leadership of John Pacheco III, has been engaged in ongoing negotiations with Invenergy LLC over potential tax breaks for their Clear River Energy Center gas and oil burning power plant, came as a surprise to many Burrillville residents Wednesday evening. Burrillville Town Solicitor Oleg Nikolyszyn, in a comment on the piece that broke this story objected to the word “secret” saying that the negotiations he and Town Manager Michael Wood were engaged in were “due diligence” and “not behind anyone’s back, or in secret, but openly.” He also says that, “Until now, the Council has not been engaged or negotiating with Invenergy.”

Nikolyszyn feels that he and the Town Manager, “would be remiss if we did not take into consideration what financial benefit the Town would receive.” They are doing, “what professionals are expected to do in a business environment.” At the meeting Nikolyszyn said that the town had a “fiduciary duty” to enter into negotiations.

That’s not what the law says.

Conservation Law Foundation senior lawyer Jerry Elmer maintains that, “one of the most effective ways that the Town Council can seek to prevent the siting of the Invenergy plant is to deny Invenergy the tax treaty it seeks.”

Not entering into a tax treaty with Invenergy will not necessarily stop Invenergy in its tracks, the plant could still go forward and pay higher taxes to the town, taking a hit to their profitability in the process. Elmer reminded me that the profitability of the plant has already suffered two recent hits “when (a) Invenergy cleared only one of two turbines in the February 8 Forward Capacity Auction; and (b) the SENE zonal clearing price had zero premium over the clearing price in Rest of Pool, unlike the previous two auctions in which our zone cleared at a huge premium.”

How many more hits to the plant’s profitability can Invenergy afford?

At Wednesday evening’s Town Council meeting Nikolyszyn was correct when he said that Burrillville has no say in whether or not the plant gets approved for Burrillville. As Elmer helpfully explained,

The underlying reason that the General Assembly created the Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) by enacting the Energy Facility Siting Act (EFSA), was that it was assumed that — whenever any major power generation facility is planned to be built anywhere — the local residents in the local town would oppose the plant because of local impacts. The purpose of the EFSA is to take the power out of the hands of the local officials, who may be subject to constituent pressure to oppose the plant. That is the reason that all the opinions that the EFSB gets under the EFSA (from DEM, OER, Town of Burrillvile, etc.) are advisory opinions only. The final decision to grant or deny a permit to build the plant rests solely with the EFSB. This was the purpose of the law.”

However, “it is in the sole discretion of the Town Council whether or not to grant a beneficial tax treaty to Invenergy. The Governor cannot force them to do that. The EFSB cannot force them to do that.”

Pacheco and other Town Council members said over and over that they need to be neutral ahead of any reports that their boards are preparing for the EFSB, because it was the Town Council that nominated the members of these boards. This is of course nonsense. Governor Gina Raimondo, who nominated the members of the EFSB board, has been a major proponent of the plant. Where is her neutrality? Why is she not afraid that her support for the project will affect the people she’s nominated to board positions?

This pretension of neutrality merely shields the Town Council from their responsibility to their constituents, who overwhelmingly do not want this plant. Nikolyszyn might think this is all business as usual but he forgets: government is not business.

The Town Council would be completely in their power to pass a resolution declaring that they will not, under any circumstances, engage in a tax treaty with Invenergy. The company could then decide to go forward with the plant or not, but not only will their profitability suffer, so will their public image.

Reaching a deal with the Town will give Invenergy and Governor Raimondo political coverage. With a tax treaty in place it will be harder to say that the plant was forced on the Town against the will of the people since the company negotiated with the representatives of the people for an “equitable” deal.

Democracy will have worked, supposedly.

Not engaging with Invenergy sends a strong message that this plant is not wanted by the people of Burrillville. The plant can then only proceed against the will of the people, against the wishes of a democratically elected government. A Governor that blatantly disregards the will of the people in such a situation is a tyrant. A company that builds an unwanted facility against a community’s interests is not a community partner but a despoiler.

Now is not the time for wishy-washy politics, business as usual and secret (not secret) negotiations.

If the Burrillville Town Council can’t take a stand, it’s time for the citizens of Burrillville to find new Town Councillors.

February 22, 2016May 3, 2016

DEM Director Coit’s Invenergy visit calls ‘fire wall’ into question

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

clear river energy center — Clear River Energy Center

UPDATE: Todd Anthony Bianco, Coordinator of the RI Energy Facility Siting Board, said the following in an email:

“A site visit of the Invenergy property will not violate the Energy Facility Siting Board Rule regarding ex parte communication. All parties were given notice through counsel and have the opportunity to attend. The purpose of the visit is for a Board member to familiarize herself or himself with the area in order to ask informed questions through discovery and during the hearing.”

Janet Coit, director of the Department of Environmental Management (DEM), will be touring the site of Invenergy’s proposed gas and oil burning power plant today at 1pm. As one of the two members of the EFSB (Energy Facilities Siting Board) she is legally not allowed to receive “any information about the case at any time or in any manner outside the hearing process,” according to Jerry Elmer, Senior Attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF).

At issue is the Clear River Energy Center, a proposed 900-1000MW power plant to be located in Burrillville, RI. Last week, the ISO-New England Forward Capacity Auction demonstrated that there is no need for this plant to be built. We also have evidence accumulating that building this plant will ensure that RI will not meet its commitments to a clean energy future.

Not having conversations with any of the various interests concerned with the proposed power plant is important to the process. During the EFSB hearing on January 12, Coit explained that she was “firewalling” herself from any information that may come up as the DEM does its part towards certifying the plant. At the time, some activists in the room openly doubted Coit’s remarks. At a protest of Governor Gina Raimondo’s support for the plant at Goddard Park, orchestrated by members of Fighting Against Natural Gas (FANG) and Burrillville Against Spectra Expansion (BASE), Coit told BASE founder and activist Kathy Martley that she could not speak to her about the plant because of the firewall.

The CLF, according to Elmer, “does not want in any way to interfere with the usefulness of the visit,” but they were sure to remind the EFSB board of the RI Supreme Court’s holding in Arnold v. Lebel, 941 A.2d 813 (2007). This ruling “prohibits anyone from giving EFSB members any information about the case at any time or in any manner outside the hearing process,” says Elmer.

What is interesting about the site visit is that Tod Bianco, the EFSB “coordinator”, sent out the email invitations not to the entire list of parties working through the EFSB process, but only to the lawyers involved. To Elmer, “This means, almost by definition, that what is said in the woods in Burrillville to Janet [Coit] is outside the hearing process.”

Also, what exactly the law is on what can or cannot be said to Coit during this meeting is unclear. “Arguably,” says Elmer, “Janet asking, ‘Where is the route that the transmission interconnection will go,’ and the answer, ‘From that point over there to this point over here,’ is not allowed.”

An email to Coit, the Governor’s office and DEM staff has gone unanswered as of this writing, but we will be glad to update the story should any of these parties respond. A lawyer representing the CLF will also be on the site visit, to “observe what occurs and who says what to whom.”

If there are improper conversations between Invenergy officials and Director Coit, it will be a matter for the courts to decide, though as was said earlier, figuring out the law here could be tricky. In any event, saying the wrong thing outside an official hearing puts Invenergy in the position of having the entire case closed, meaning that the plant cannot be built.

February 16, 2016May 3, 2016

Recent power auction proves Burrillville power plant unneeded

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 gas and oil fired energy plant proposed by Invenergy for Burrillville, Rhode Island is not needed, according to the results of ISO New England Forward Capacity Auction, the results of which were released last Monday. The results of the auction means that cost of energy in Rhode Island in 2019-2020 will be reduced and these lower costs have nothing to do with the energy offered by Invenergy.

[Note: Jerry Elmer had this to say in an email received after the story ran: “Energy and capacity are two different commodities. (The third component of electricity price is ‘ancillary services.’) The price of both energy and capacity are elements of the ultimate price of electricity that is paid by ratepayers (electricity customers) but energy and capacity are not the same thing. (That is, energy and capacity are not the same thing as each other; and energy and capacity prices are not the same thing as the price of electricity.) As components of the overall electricity market in New England, energy represents about 80% of the value (price) of electricity and capacity represents about 20%. (Ancillary services are a very, very small part of the price.)]

Forward Capacity Auctions (FCA) are somewhat complicated, and making sense of the ISO NE press release was a big lift, so I talked to Jerry Elmer, senior staff attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), to get my head around it.

“Invenergy is planning to build a 900 – 1000 MegaWatt (MW) plant,” said Elmer, “Only 485 MWs cleared in that auction and got a capacity supply obligation (CSO). So what that tells you immediately is that the plant is not needed in RI. If the plant were needed it would have gotten a CSO of 900 MW.”

Hold up. Let’s take this a little slower.

The way electrical prices are determined in Rhode Island is through a series of annual auctions. Most recently we completed FCA 10 (Forward Capacity Auction 10). Power companies bid to supply energy and ISO NE takes the best offers at the lowest price. The companies in the bidding are then obligated to supply that power during the time period specified and at the determined price. This is the capacity supply obligation (CSO).

In the most recent auction, FCA 10, Invenergy cleared only 485 MWs, about half of what their proposed 900-1000 MW plant could produce.

Under the rules of ISO NE, a certain amount of energy must be locally sourced in each zone. Here in Rhode Island, we are in the South Eastern New England (SENE) zone and the amount of locally sourced power required is 10,028 MW.

As Elmer explained the math, “The zone cleared the auction at 11,348 MW. So do a thought experiment: Invenergy got a CSO for 485 MW. Take 485 MW out of 11,348 MW and you’ve got 10,843 MW in the zone without Invenergy. You’ve got a surplus. You’ve 500 MW more than you need, without Invenergy.”

This is not what Invenergy expected when they presented their plans for the new plant. “If you look at Invenergy’s filing with the Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB),” says Elmer, “they were talking about how desperately the plant is needed, it’s needed in RI to keep the lights on, and that the clearing price of capacity is going to be much higher in RI than in the rest of the ISO NE pool, what they call ‘rest of pool.’”

In the previous auction, Rhode Island did not fare so well. The reason for this is that between FCA 9 and FCA 10 the zones were restructured. “It used to be, up until this auction, there were two separate zones,” said Elmer, “There was SEMA RI (SouthEast Massachusetts and RI), NEMA Boston (SouthEast Massachusetts and Boston), and ‘Rest of Pool,’ but for FCA 10, the ISO collapsed what used to be the NEMA Boston zone with the SEMA RI zone and made one SouthEast New England (SENE) zone.

“The interesting thing here is that Invenergy has been planning this plant for a couple of years and it is true that in the two previous actions, FCA 8 and FCA 9 one year ago, the SEMA RI zone cleared much higher than rest of pool. Invenergy was right about that. So they start this plan for this plant, and they figure that they are going to absolutely clean up financially.

“This is an import constrained zone, clearing price is double what the rest of the pool is, we’re going to put 900 or 1000 MW into this very high priced zone, we are going to make a fortune. This was their thinking.

“Between FCA 9 and FCA 10, ISO NE collapsed the NEMA Boston and SEMA RI zone into a big zone, and now, instead of the zone that includes RI being very constrained with a shortage of power, we now have an excess of power in the zone.”

Drawing the lines of the various zones has nothing to do with politics, said Elmer, “It’s nothing you can vote on or put political pressure on. It’s physics! It’s where the transmission does or does not exist.”

Let’s look at this from Invenergy’s point of view for a minute: Invenergy “thought they were supposed to have 900 or 1000 MW cleared, at a very high price,” said Elmer, “instead only half the plant cleared, 485 MW. What cleared went at exactly the same price as rest of pool, no premium, zero. The rest of pool came out 25 percent lower than last year’s clearing price, and the zone here [in Rhode Island] cleared at about half the price of last years price for this zone.”

This is great news for Rhode Island, but for Invenergy, not so much. “Here’s the kicker,” said Elmer, “Invenergy got a CSO for 485 MW. That means they have got to build the plant. They are on the hook. They posted a huge bond with the ISO called Financial Assurance (FA) just to be allowed to play in the auction. So now Invenergy has the worst of all worlds.

“It only sold half its capacity to the ISO and at a much lower price than anticipated, but they still have to build the plant, or as an alternative, they could sell their CSO between now and June 1, 2019 in one of the annual or monthly reconfiguration auctions that the ISO runs, and get out of the business altogether and not even build the plant.

“They are now forced to build the plant that will be much less profitable and lucrative than they thought, or get out of it.”

Currently, the EFSB is holding hearings to determine whether or not the plant will be built. In their filing with the EFSB, Invenergy’s two major arguments in favor of the plant were, “The plant is needed for system reliability, to prevent blackouts, to keep the lights on” and “The plant will end up lowering the bill for ratepayers,” said Elmer.

“What the results of the auction shows is that both of Invenergy’s main arguments are just wrong. They are false,” said Elmer, “The plant is not needed for system reliability, it is not needed to keep the lights on and the net effect on the clearing price is either zero or very close to zero because the plant wasn’t needed.”

“CLF is presenting three witnesses to the EFSB,” said Elmer, “one witness for each of the three arguments that Invenergy is making in favor of the plant. We’ve got one witness on the system reliability issue: Is the plant needed to keep the lights on? The answer is no and this auction proves it.

“We have a separate witness on the money issue. Will building the plant save money for rate payers? This auction result says no, the answer is no.

“And then we’ve got another witness on the climate change/carbon emission issues whose testimony is going to be that if the plant is built, it will be impossible for the state to meet its carbon emission reduction goals.”

This information is “absolutely all relevant to the EFSB. In fact, Invenergy is the party before the EFSB that raised these issues! CLF is not raising these issues. We’re addressing these issues because Invenergy raised them. In legal terms, Invenergy opened the door on each of these issues, we’re just walking through it. We’re not raising these issues, Invenergy’s raising these issues. The reason we’ve got witnesses addressing these issues is because Invenergy raised them!”

The arguments in favor of the plant that we are hearing from our elected leaders, such as Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, that Rhode Island suffers from an energy “choke point” and needs this plant for grid reliability, is simply not true any more, if it ever was. Given this new information, Senator Whitehouse should now feel very free to change his position on the proposed plant.

The low energy prices available now allows Rhode Island the luxury of planning a just transition to renewable energy sources and the time we need to concentrate on efforts to lower the amount of energy we need. Political leadership is needed to take advantage of this opportunity, and should not be squandered on an unnecessary fossil fuel plant that will harm Rhode Island’s environment and keep us addicted to fossil fuels for at least another half century.

February 9, 2016

CLF wants the ‘highly successful’ Renewable Energy Standard extended

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

Jerry Elmer, Senior Attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), will today speak in favor of extending Rhode Island’s “highly successful” Renewable Energy Standard (RES) before the House Committee on Corporations. RES was first passed in 2004 and scheduled run until 2019, unless it is renewed, per the current bill, to run until 2035.

According to Elmer, who made an advanced copy of his testimony available, “In June 2004, when this General Assembly enacted Rhode Island’s Renewable Energy Standard (RES)… Rhode Island was a pioneer. We were one of the first states to enact such a renewable energy mandate. The statute that this legislature enacted then was correctly seen as an experiment. The new statute obligated Rhode Island’s electricity utility to buy some of its electricity from renewable energy sources. As you know, the obligation started quite small, 3 percent of load in 2007, and it was to ramp up to 16 percent of load in 2019.”

Elmer goes on to say,

Not every statute this General Assembly enacts is successful; and not every law works as the legislature intends for it to work. But the RES Statute that you enacted in 2004 has been extremely successful; and it has worked pretty much the way you intended it to work.

“I know this to be true from first-hand experience. Since the RES was enacted in 2004, CLF has been a party in every proceeding at the Public Utilities Commission that has enforced the statute.

“When Rhode Island adopted its RES mandate in 2004, we were a true pioneer. Today, 29 states have mandatory renewable energy laws, including five of the six New England states (all except Vermont) as well as New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Arizona. and New Mexico.

“Some, like California’s, are more aggressive than Rhode Island’s; but none has worked more according to plan than Rhode Island’s.

“Of course, the RES Statute you designed in 2004 ends it annual ramp-up in 2019. Thus, now is the time to extend the RES Statute until 2035. Eleven years ago, you enacted a new experimental statute; your idea was to re-visit the statute after a decade in order to determine whether or not it worked, and whether or not it was worth extending. Today. we have the answer to that question: the statute has been extremely successful. Yes, the RES should be extended.”

January 29, 2016May 3, 2016

Siting Board acting on Invenergy’s schedule for Burrillville gas plant

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

EFSB Chair Margaret Curran said that because of the “tight time schedule” it’s critical that the board get advisory opinions “as soon as possible,” raising the question as to why the board feels the need to rush Invenergy‘s application process.

The EFSB also denied all but two motions that were brought before it today.

The Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) met today to decide a number of issues pertaining to the “Clear River Energy Center” a new methane gas power plant planned by Invenergy for the Town of Burrillville.

Things did not go well for opponents of the plan.

Curran began the meeting reminding those in attendance that their would be no public comment. This did not stop people from standing and loudly declaring their dissatisfaction with some decisions made by the board.

EFSB board member Janet Coit, director of the Department of Environmental Management (DEM), asked that people “respect the process” and stressed that there would be ample opportunity for public comment. Then the board began making their decisions.

Dennis and Kathryn Sherman and Paul and Mary Bolduc whose properties are near the site of the proposed plant and whose interests are not covered by any other intervenors, were granted intervenor status by the EFSB.

The Rhode Island Progressive Democrats (RIPDA) were denied. They do not have an adequately expressed interest.

Fighting Against Natural Gas (FANG) and Burrillville Against Spectra Expansion (BASE) are also denied, their intervention was decided to be not in the public interest.The simple allegation “however heart felt” of public interest is not enough.

Fossil Free Rhode Island (FFRI), Sister Mary Pendergast and Occupy Providence filed identical applications, and there is no reason to grant intervenor status said Curran and Coit.

Peter Nightingale, from Fossil Free RI, issued the following statement upon the group being denied intervenor status:

“Rhode Island government may decide to sell Rhode Island down the “Clear River.”

“If it does, it may have acted in accordance with twisted statuary law.
“But government, in that case, will have failed in its fiduciary duty to protect the natural resources —air, land and water— it holds in trust for the People.
“When the time comes, those responsible will be held accountable for their crimes against humanity and nature.”

Nightingale was escorted from the room by security when he rose and loudly read his statement to the board.

Pat Fontes, representing Occupy Providence, also rose and spoke, as she left the room. Fontes said, in a statement, “The predator’s pursuit of profit produces pain for poorer people. It’s the weakest who inherit the consequences without ever having their opinion about the risks taken into account.” She said, “Remember Flint, Michigan!” as she left.

Sally J. Mendzela‘s motion was dismissed because her ideas were “outside the scope” of the process.

The Burrillville Land Trust‘s motion for intervention was denied. Their concerns will be dealt with by the DEM, said the board. “I think their will be other opportunities” said Coit, for the Burrillville Land Trust to make their concerns known. The Land Trust’s motion to close the docket was rendered moot by their denial of intervenor status.

Paul Roselli, president of the Burrillville Land Trust was not surprised by the Board’s decision. He maintains that the issue of biodiversity will not be covered. The impact on species is dependent on an individual species’ status as endangered or threatened, etc. The overall or “holistic” impact of something like Clear River is not considered, and this is the perspective Roselli hoped the Land Trust would bring.

Still, some good came out of the Land Trust’s motion. Invenergy’s application has been updated to ensure compliance with section 44 of the Clean Water Act.

RI Administration for Planning, Office of Energy Resources, the DEM, the RIPUC, RIDOT, the Department of Health and other state agencies will all be asked for advisory opinions. Curran says that because of the “tight time schedule” it’s critical that we get advisory opinions “as soon as possible.”

This raises the question: Why is the EFSB on a Invenergy’s time table?

The Office of Energy Resources will render advisory opinions regarding all issues per the Resilient RI Act. as bought up by the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF).

The board will be looking for specific limitations on the use of “secondary fuels,” said Curran. The proposed power plant is made to run on fuel oil as well as methane, as discussed on RI Future here.

There was also some consideration given to Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

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.

The first public hearing will be on Thursday, March 31 in the cafeteria of the Burrillville’s High School. The meeting will be officially announced soon.

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 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 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.

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