National Grid is requesting that the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (RIPUC) approve a 20-year gas capacity contract” with Algonquin Gas Transmission Company LLC (Algonquin) for natural gas transportation capacity and storage services on Algonquin’s Access Northeast Project (ANE Project).”
The multinational energy conglomerate not only wants Rhode Island ratepayers to subsidize the construction of fracked gas infrastructure, they want consumers to ensure that the project is profitable for the company.
Part of National Grid’s 572 page application includes “a Capacity Cost Recovery Provision tariff, which allows the Company to recover all incremental costs associated with the ANE Agreement, as well as the Company’s proposed financial incentive.” Understand that when National Grid says “financial incentives” they are talking about company profits.
The logic that National Grid is using to claim the right to tariffs is that the RIPUC has allowed such charges when it comes to “long-term renewable electricity for retail customers from wholesale power providers.” [emphasis added] In other words, because the government has taken an interest in expanding renewable energy sources like wind and solar, and allowed tariffs to support these efforts, National Grid argues that it should be allowed similar considerations for fossil fuels such as fracked gas.
National Grid owns a 20 percent stake in the ANE Project, so Rhode Islanders will be ensuring that the company generates a profit as they buy fracked gas from themselves if the RIPUC approves this request.
A similar tariff stalled in the Massachusetts legislature, where the state Senate unanimously rejected the idea but the session ended before a House vote. The Massachusetts Supreme Court is deciding on the validity of the tariff, since the Massachusetts PUC approved the idea.
National Grid also asked that their request be approved “as expeditiously as possible,” meaning that they want the decision fast tracked. As a result, the public comment meeting held last night at the RIPUC offices in Warwick was the first and last opportunity for public comment, unless RIPUC commissioners Margaret Curran and Herbert DeSimone III decide to hold another public comment meeting. (The third member of the RIPUC board, Marion Gold, has recused herself.) Written comment can be sent to thomas.kogut@dpuc.ri.gov. Mention that you are commenting on Docket No. 4627.
The first speaker of the night, Doug Gablinske of The Energy Council of New England (TEC-RI), was also the only speaker in favor of the idea. Gablinske called the project “a novel approach” and said that “it’s good for ratepayers, for employees, for employers and for business.”
From there, things went downhill pretty quickly.
Calling the tariff an “unprecedented charge” Priscilla De La Cruz of the People’s Power and Light called on the RIPUC to reject National Grid’s request. “Why should consumers take on the risk of a new, unnecessary gas pipeline?” De La Cruz maintained that the entire idea conflicts with the goals of the 2014 Resilient Rhode Island Act. (You can read De La Cruz’s full testimony here.)
Lynn Clark came down from Burrillville, wearing her “No New Power Plant” tee shirt to argue against the proposal. She said that allowing National Grid to pass the costs of their LNG project onto consumers adds “insult to injury” to everyone living in her part of the state.
Other states did comprehensive studies before considering pipeline tariffs, said Nick Katkevich of the FANG Collective, who has been fighting pipeline projects in and around Rhode Island for three years. Massachusetts and Maine have both produced studies that concluded that pipeline tariffs are a bad idea, said Katkevich. “It’s shameful that National Grid wants to have guaranteed profits as part of this,” said Katkevich. “They don’t care about people. They don’t care about people’s utility rates… if they did they wouldn’t put guaranteed profits in there.”
“No one wants these pipelines,” said Katkevich, “across the region people are resisting the first of the three Spectra expansions… There have been 240 people arrested as part of direct action in New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts.”
If you have an opinion on this project, you can send it to Luly.massaro@puc.ri.gov. Mention that you are commenting on Docket No. 4627.
Below find all the testimony from the hearing.
Below is all the testimony, in order, separated by speaker.
01 Representative Cale Keable, who represents Burrillville, introduced the bill.
02 Jeremy Bailey, Burrillville resident
03 Lenette F. Boisselle, representing the Northern RI Chamber of Commerce, opposes the bill. Earlier in the day, Loiselle was at the Kirkbrae Country Club for the Northern RI Chamber of Commerce breakfest. At that event, all the questions for guest speaker John Niland, director of development for Invenergy, the company that wants to build the power plant in Burrillville, were submitted in writing. It was Boiselle who carefully sorted the questions, allowing Niland to only answer softball questions.
Boiselle took some tough questions regarding her opposition to the bill. The Chamber of Commerce, says Boiselle, “has a history of opposing any type of referendum… as a fundamental principle, the Chamber of Commerce believes that these types of issues are extremely complicated, that’s why we elect people to be in a position to be able to take the time to study the pros and the cons and determine whats in the best interest of whether it be the town or whether it be the state.”
Boiselle said that the Chamber has “no position on the power plant one way or another” and that if this bill is passed, whoever spends the most amount of money to advertise their positions will likely win.
The legislation, said Boiselle, in response to a question from Representative Michael Marcello, “could kill [a project] just by making it wait” until the next general election for the voters to decide.
Representative John Lombardi asked “what would be wrong with the town and the council having the last say in this. Is there a problem with that? You say you oppose that?”
Boiselle said that the time it takes to understand the pros and cons of complex issues is too great for voters. That’s why we elect representatives.
“I think its always good to engage the people,” said Lombardi.”It’s supposed to be a representative government, but sometimes it doesn’t end up that way. They don’t seak on the behalf of the people. I think this is a good process.”
“I’m just curious,” asked Representative Aaron Regunberg, “Money plays a big role in pretty much every election, do you think we shouldn’t have any elections?”
04 Jerry Elmer, senior attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation is strongly in favor of the bill.
05 Mike Ryan of National Grid opposes the bill, at least in part. They have no position on the part of the bill concerning voter approval of negotiated tax treaties.
06 Meg Kerr, of the Audubon Society, is for the bill.
07 Elizabeth Suever representing the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce opposes the bill. She seems to think that granting more democracy to Burrillville might make other municipalities want more democracy as well, which may slow down growth. Of course, Suever never uses the word democracy, because that would make her argument sound anti-American.
08 Paul Bolduc is a Burrillville resident.
09 Greg Mancini – Build RI
10 Paul Beaudette – Environmental Council of RI
11 Michael Sabitoni -Building Trades Council
12 Lynn Clark
13 Scott Duhamel – Building Trades
14 Peter Nightingale – Fossil Free RI
15 Roy Coulombe – Building Trades
16 Adam Lupino – Laborers of NE
17 Catherine
18 Paul McDonald – Providence Central Labor Council
19 Paul Lefebvre
20 George Nee AFL-CIO
21 Jan Luby
22 Richard Sinapi – NE Mechanical Contractors Association
23
24 Doug Gablinske Tech RI, The Energy Council
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
One of the nice things about owning several properties is that when it comes to politics, you have lots of choices about where you can say you live. I’m not talking about the formal definition of legal residence, but “addresses of convenience.”
Having an address of convenience gives you the choice of where to vote or where to run for office. You can shop around to find the most advantageous choice. Not necessarily a legal choice, but one that is rarely ever challenged.
We have lots of examples, such as Republican Kernan “Kerry” King who ran against Gina Raimondo for general treasurer in 2010 even though he was actually a legal resident of Florida and was even collecting a $50,000 a year homestead property tax exemption on his Sarasota County home. He was claiming his Saunderstown house as his legal residence on his campaign declaration.
In my state Representative District (36), we now have a carpetbagger state Representative, a Tea Party Libertarian named Blake Filippi. Filippi claims he lives in his mother’s house on Block Island even though he has listed his mother’s house in Lincoln as his legal address on dozens of legal documents including his Massachusetts lawyer’s license. He told Bob Plain he is currently living in a Providence apartment.
Addresses of convenience. It’s nice to be able to pick and choose. It’s not just Republicans and Libertarians that do it; Democrats also do it.
Take Doug Gablinske, for example. He made a big splash in Rhode Island politics during his two terms in the RI House representing District 68 in Bristol as one of the most vociferous DINOs (Democrat in name only), leading the attack against public workers.
As a result of the 2010 US Census, Gablinske’s district boundaries were changed. In an e-mail to me he said, “I was carefully gerrymandered out of District 68, with the input of Rep. Morrison into the redistricting process, who was afraid I was going to run against him in 2012. The gerrymandering is obvious, as the line moved over one street, to redistrict me out.”
His home at 45 Kickemuit Avenue in Bristol is no longer in District 68, but moved instead to District 69. Gablinske and his wife Patricia moved with the times and changed their voter registration to 44 Greylock Road which is Gablinske’s mother’s house, solidly within District 68 where they have cast their ballots in 2014.
In his e-mail to me, Gablinske asserted that his change in registration had “nothing at all to do with that and everything to do with helping to care for my 86 year old mother, which is where she resides and I own the house with my siblings.”
Despite the change in voter registration, Doug Gablinske kept using his address as 45 Kickemuit Avenue on many campaign contributions he made since re-registering at Greylock Road (example).
There are a dozen major political donations by Gablinske listed in the Board of Elections database for 2014. Gablinske’s residence shows up as Kickemuit on five of those major contributions; his business address on Metacom Avenue is listed on the other seven.
Greylock Road is not listed on any of these donor files.
I asked Gablinske about the checks written from his business address (it is illegal for businesses to make direct donations to Rhode Island political candidates). Gablinske said that he keeps three checkbooks, one for each of these three properties and acknowledged that it would be illegal if he made a donation through his appraisal business.
He added: “For the record, at your request, I reside at both 44 Greylock Road and 45 Kickemuit Avenue and my voter address was changed to 44 Greylock Road, on may May 8th, 2014. My brother Wayne Gablinske, sold his house on Sandra Court, Bristol on February 27, 2015. He has now moved into 44 Greylock Road to care for my mother, so I have returned to 45 Kickemuit Avenue and am changing my voter address back to that address, all of which is perfectly legal.”
Even though he checked his voter registration to Greylock Road in his old district, Gablinske did not make a run to regain his lost House seat in 2012 or 2014, apparently content to run his appraisal business and engage in lobbying. Gablinske said in his e-mail to me, “I have no plans to run for public office…in any district!”
After losing the 2010 Democratic primary, Gablinske started to work with Terrance Martiesian’s lobbying firm, filing reports with the Secretary of State since 2011 that he lobbied the General Assembly on behalf of the RI Mortgage Bankers at no charge.
Although, on paper, Gablinske is lobbying for the bankers for free, Martiesian’s lobbying firm is billing the RI Mortgage Bankers Association $50,000. What Gablinske gets out of the arrangement does not appear to be covered in the reports to the Secretary of State.
Gablinske asserts that he gets nothing from Martiesian and lobbies for free for the Mortgage Bankers Association because he sits on their board and co-chairs their legislative committee. As an appraiser, Gablinske obviously does a lot of work with mortgage bankers but, he says, “you are trying to connect dots, that do not connect.”
If Gablinske decides the time is right to try to return to the General Assembly since he’s apparently not getting rich from his peculiar lobbying practice, it would be interesting to see which address he uses.
Either address – Kickemuit or Greylock – could be challenged by some sharp-eyed voter based on all the conflicting public records and even Gablinske’s own statement that he lives in both places. But any such challenge would have to be filed very quickly.
After Rep. Donna Walsh learned about Blake Filippi’s declaration of residence and filed a complaint, she was told by BOE Director Bob Kando that under the Board of Election’s rules, there is only a 24-hour window to file a challenge to a candidate’s declaration of candidacy.
While the bizarre way the Board of Elections rules are written gives candidates the edge to get away with running for a seat in a District but not living there, there is the matter of state law and voting.
Under the Rhode Island General Laws, it is a felony to vote or attempt to vote anywhere “other than in the…representative district, or voting district in which the person has his or her ‘residence’”…. Gablinske will have to make up his mind where he really lives before the next time he votes.
One added irony about Gablinske’s flexible residency is that during his time in the State House, he was an outspoken supporter of Rhode Island’s voter ID law.
]]>