EFSB – Page 2 – RI Future

July 27, 2016July 28, 2016

Save The Bay wants Invenergy to prove consistency with Resilient RI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 27, 2016

CLF makes its case against need for Burrillville power plant at RIPUC hearing

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

2016-07-26 PUC Burrillville 3026 — Robert Fagan

On the second day of the RI Public Utilities Commission (RIPUC)’s evidentiary hearing concerning Invenergy‘s proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant, to be located in Burrillville, Jerry Elmer of the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) presented his witnesses who argued that the power plant is not needed and that it’s effect on ratepayers would be negligible.

The CLF’s case is one of nuance, and much depends on the views of Commissioner Herbert DeSimone Jr. DeSimone is the one commissioner on the PUC board that did not recuse themself, and the one commissioner who will write the RIPUC’s advisory opinion to the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB), the body ultimately responsible for deciding on the plant. Invenergy is making the case that since the proposed plant has already sold half its capacity in an energy futures market run by ISO-NE, the plant is by definition needed. This is the default position not only of Invenergy, but also of the RI Office of Energy Resources (OER) and the RIPUC, if the questioning from their attorneys at the hearing are any indication.

The CLF is maintaining that what ISO-NE did was purchase extra power, and if Invenergy’s plant is taken out, there will still be more than enough electricity on the grid to power all of New England. Also, going forward, as more and more renewables come on line, the need for the plant will go down, not increase. Unfortunately, ISO-NE is somewhat of a black box. Though they publish thousands of pages on how their energy auctions are run, figuring out why one plant’s energy was purchased and another was not is virtually impossible, and no one from ISO-NE was at the hearing to answer questions.

As for ratepayer savings, on the first day of the hearing Invenergy’s attorney Alan Shoer called his witnesses and made his case that the savings to ratepayers would be significant. On the stand, John Niland, director of development for Invenergy admitted that the $280 million number he gave to Burrillville residents earlier in the year was false, and that he knew it was false when he presented it. The true number was closer to $36 million in rate payer savings.

2016-07-26 PUC Burrillville 3031 — All lawyers at the bench for a huddle

The CLF’s witness, Christopher Stix, also ruled out the $280 million number, saying it took him one week after the ISO-NE auction results were published to perform his calculations that the actual savings ranged from between zero and $36 million. John Niland testified that Invenergy did not know this number when he falsely gave the $280 million figure to the audience in Burrillville seven weeks after the auction published its results.

It is up to DeSimone to decide whether or not a savings of between zero and $36 million to rate payers is worth the additional pollution, the despoilment of Burrillville’s pristine habitats and the continued dependency on fracked gas for our energy needs in New England for decades to come. It is worth noting that $280 million was a number too big to ignore, from an economic standpoint, where as zero to $36 million (which is a bell curve, the actual number may be closer to $20 million) is not nearly as tantalizing.

The CLF’s first witness, Robert Fagan, testified for a marathon five hours.

“We know now is that the Invenergy plant is not needed for electrical needs in New England,” said Fagan, and under cross examination he did not falter.

Getting through Fagan’s testimony required defining a host of terms and acronyms. ICR, LOLE, NERC, sloping versus vertical demand curves etc. were defined and discussed. It was very technical, but it served two functions. One, it established Fagan’s expertise, something Invenergy tried to call into question in pre-filed testimony, and two, it helped prove Fagan’s case that the proposed power plant was not necessary.

Though high-powered attorneys Alan Shoer and Jerry Elmer set the tone for the meeting, it’s most likely that RIPUC attorney Cynthia Wilson-Frias will have the most impact on Commissioner DeSimone’s advisory opinion, given that she will likely help author it and DeSimone can be expected to lean heavily on RIPUC’s in house legal expertise. Wilson-Frias asked pointed questions about the fact that Invenergy already sold some of its expected output to ISO-NE. She indicated that since the energy sold, it is by definition needed. Fagan countered this logic well, his entire testimony was in fact a rebuttal of sorts to this idea, so it comes down to how much weight Wilson-Frias gives Fagan’s views versus the more mainstream “free” market ideas favored by Invenergy.

The last day of the hearing is today, and unfortunately I will not be in attendance. I hope to get an update from Jerry Elmer after the hearing.

You can view the entire days proceedings below:

July 26, 2016July 26, 2016

Invenergy’s John Niland under oath at PUC hearing for Burrillville power plant

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

There were two big reveals at the first day of the PUC evidentiary hearing in Warwick on Monday. First, John Niland, director of development for Invenergy, admitted under oath that he knowingly gave false information to the EFSB at the March 31, 2016 EFSB hearing held at the Burrillville High School. Second, Invenergy’s proposed plant will not be clean: It’s emissions will be higher than the the current New England average of all power plants.

Everyone seemed surprised that the evidentiary hearing at the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) regarding Invenergy’s proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant for the Town of Burrillville wasn’t packed with Burrillville residents. The Warwick police officer seated at the back of the room looked almost bored. Michael McElroy rescinded his motion to hold the hearing in a larger venue because, as his co-counsel Oleg Nikolyszyn said, “there are plenty of seats.” Of course, holding the meeting 40 minutes outside Burrillville during a work day was a surefire way to limit attendance.

The Public Utilities Commission hearing is being held to help the one PUC commissioner that did not recuse himself craft an opinion on whether or not the plant is needed and what effects the plant will have on ratepayers. The one commissioner is lawyer Herbert F. DeSimone, Jr.. Of his co-commissioners, Margaret Curran is on the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB), the body ultimately deciding on Invenergy’s application. Obviously she cannot write an advisory opinion to herself. Marion Gold is on record for having supported the plant during her stint as the executive director of the RI Office of Energy Resources. This leaves only Herbert DeSimone on the board. He will author the advisory opinion to the EFSB.

For what it’s worth DeSimone ruled early on that having only one person on the board does not violate any rules, as he will not be making any decisions, but will simply be crafting an advisory opinion.

Lawyers Alan Shoer, representing Invenergy and Jerry Elmer, representing the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), delivered opening statements. Shoer argued that the plant is needed, that it will reduce air emissions and save ratepayers money. Elmer explained that Invenergy’s promises were unlikely.

The first witness was Building Trades president Michael Sabitoni. He testified on the “socio-economic impacts of project” i.e., the jobs. Elmer objected, because jobs are not within the scope of this hearing. DeSimone overruled Elmer, saying, “I’ll allow the statement to stand but I’ll give it the weight that is appropriate.”

Under grilling from Burrilville’s lawyer Michael McElroy, Sabitoni estimated that 80 percent of the jobs created by this project will be from Rhode Island. He had no estimates on the number of jobs that will be created for Burrillville. He said that the members of his unions will be well placed to get the more permanent jobs on offer at the plant as well.

Next up was John Niland, director of development at Invenergy. His testimony stretched out for over 80 minutes, and there were some interesting exchanges along the way.

Under oath and under the examination of Jerry Elmer, Niland admitted that when he said, to the EFSB on March 31 in Burrillville, that Rhode Islanders would save $280 million on electricity after the new plant was built, he knew the number was wrong. He said that he didn’t have a better number to give, so he went with the older, wrong number. The true savings cannot be over $30 million, and could be closer to zero, maintains the CLF.

Under examination, Jerry Elmer also forced Niland to concede that Invenergy’s claim that coal and oil together account for 28 percent of New England’s energy footprint is incorrect. The true number is closer to six percent.

Niland claimed that since Invenergy sold half it’s output in the most recent energy auction, the plant is needed, by definition. Burrillville’s lawyer Michael McElroy pointed out that if only half the proposed plant’s energy is sold, then by Niland’s own logic only half the plant is needed. And if half the plant is all that’s needed, savings to ratepayers can be expected to be “substantially less.”

Niland ageed.

The growth of renewable energy sources will reduce the need for the power plant over time, said Niland. The plant has a life expectancy of 40 years. Niland knows of LNG plants still operating after 60 years. Niland admitted that Rhode Island’s dependency on fossil fuels will increase once the plant is built. If the plant is built, Rhode Island’s carbon footprint will go up, admitted Niland. Though technically, said Niland, given that RI is a net energy importer our emissions, “could be reduced.”

McElroy was not happy with Niland’s caveat. Within Rhode Island’s borders, asked McElroy, “Emissions will go up, correct?”

“I believe so,” said Niland.

McElroy asked about why Burrillville was chosen as a location for the plant. Niland said that the location was chosen due to its proximity to the Algonquin gas pipeline and electrical transmission wires. (Both of which were updated recently, I should note.) Niland’s job is to locate and develop projects like the one planned for Burrillville. He was initially lured here because of the state’s high energy prices, near $17 a killowatt hour. The new lower prices at the recent energy auction, closer to $7, will probably reduce interest in bringing large projects like this to the region, said Niland. If an energy plant doesn’t clear the energy auction, said Niland, it isn’t needed.

2016-07-25 PUC Burrillville 3021 — Ryan Hardy

The next and last witness for Invenergy was Ryan Hardy. Hardy is the person who prepared Invenergy’s report that calculated the rate savings should the plant be built. Jerry Elmer began his cross examination by handing Hardy a calculator and asking him to run the numbers, based on Invenergy’s own specs. After a long pause, Hardy came up with the plant producing 817 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour. Hardy’s written testimony was 760 pounds. Ryan countered that he was basing his number on estimates of actual plant use, which he estimated to be about 70 percent of capacity. The numbers Elmer had him calculate were maximum possible output.

Also, said Hardy, the plant will be “primarily run on LNG, never on fuel oil, unless gas is not available.”

However, both of Hardy’s estimates are over the New England average, meaning that the plant can’t reduce emissions, because the plant’s emissions are higher than the average plant emissions in New England.

Elmer asked Hardy about ratepayer savings next. “Was your analysis of FCA-10 [the electricity auction] based on selling both turbines?”

“Yes,” said Hardy.

“Were you wrong about that?”

“Yes.”

“Was it reasonable for Niland to estimate savings of $280 million when he knew otherwise?”

“Yes,” said Ryan.

You can read Jerry Elmer’s thoughts about day one of the hearing here.

2016-07-25 PUC Burrillville 3009 — Michael Sabitoni

July 19, 2016July 19, 2016

Raimondo 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

When Governor Gina Raimondo came to Burrillville Monday evening to hear the concerns of residents regarding Invenergy’s proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant, the people greeted her with applause, cheers, and gifts. Over the course of the two hour meeting, the Governor assured the people that she had not just listened to them, but had truly heard them.

The people rose and told them their stories, many of which those who have attended meeting after meeting in Burrillville had heard before. But Governor Raimondo was hearing them, in person, for the first time. She told the six hundred people gathered at the Burrillville High School that though she understood the problems with the MTBE in the water, that to hear the stories first hand was very powerful.

She heard them, she said.

Time and again Governor Raimondo assured the people that the power plant was “not a done deal.” For the first time the governor publicly walked back her support for the plant, saying that it was important that she maintain neutrality during the process of approving the plant. She told the people that there was a process, that the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) was holding a series of hearings and meetings. She urged the people to get involved and let their opinions be known.

Here, I think, Governor Raimondo stumbled. The people of Burrillville could not be more involved in this process. Her visit to Burrillville is a testament to their involvement. The visit is the result of months of work by Kathy Martley of BASE (Burrillville Against Spectra Expansion) and Nick Katkevich of the FANG Collective. If anything, the people of Burrillville understand “the process” better than the governor ever will. They attend the meetings of the EFSB, the Burrillville Town Council, the sewer board, the DEM, the DOH and countless others. There are many people in in Burrillville who dedicate every moment of free time, the entirety of their non-working lives, to this power plant.

This is what Invenergy has already stolen from the people of Burrillville: Every free moment of their lives.

Governor Raimondo urged the people to ”trust the process” but if the people don’t trust the process, it’s not out of some perverse anti-authoritarian impulse, it’s out of first hand experience with the very process she’s telling them to trust in. The people understand the process intimately, and they know that the process favors Invenergy, not the people.

Governor Raimondo was not asked to come to Burrillville as an advocate for “the process” she was asked to come to Burrillville to become an advocate for the people.

Additional thoughts:

As people were let into the Burrillville High School, after waiting outside in the parking lot in the ninety degree heat for hours, security informed them that no more than one person would be allowed in the restrooms at a time. Each restroom accommodates at least seven people. I asked the man in charge of security why this was the case. He told me “Security reasons.” I asked how two people in a men’s room might threaten security in a way that one person couldn’t. He became angry and said, “I’m not going to debate you, I already answered your question.”

Raimondo in Burrillville 020 — Dave Layman

The event was moderated by retired newscaster Dave Layman, who volunteered for the mission. Layman set the rules for the meeting, but did so in a way that was infantilizing. This wasn’t a high school full of children, this was a high school full of engaged residents who were very familiar with the ways in which public meetings work. This was a high school auditorium full of people who understand how to behave at a public forum, yet Layman decided to devote no small amount of time to explaining the importance of a Norman Rockwell painting about civil civic engagement. It was elitist and condescending and a poor way to set the tone.

But, despite these caveats, once the meeting got under way, it seemed to go well. The people of Burrillville stood tall, hit hard and did not back away from calling the governor to account. She stayed through the end and beyond, coming off the stage after the meeting and greeted the people one on one.

The people of Burrillville have been treated as afterthoughts in this process, then as agitators and then as children. But by the end of the night Governor Gina Raimondo was forced to see them as people, and recognize their full humanity.

Here’s the full video:

Senator Paul Fogarty

Representative Cale Keable

Dave Layman sets the rules.

Kathy Martley

Raimondo in Burrillville 005 — The marchers from Providence arrive

Raimondo in Burrillville 010 — Only one person allowed in here at a time

Raimondo in Burrillville 012 — The gift baskets presented to Governor Raimondo

Raimondo in Burrillville 013 — The opposition

Raimondo in Burrillville 019 — David Layman

Raimondo in Burrillville 021 — Super serious about the timing

July 15, 2016July 18, 2016

What Governor Raimondo should expect 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

With the opposition to Invenergy‘s proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant intensifying every day, Governor Gina Raimondo might be worrying about the reception she’s likely to receive when she visits Burrillville Monday evening. Having visited Burrillville many times myself, and having met and chatted with dozens of residents there, I can safely say that the Governor can expect a strong rebuttal to her support for the plant, but also a courteous and respectful reception.

This may be a career defining moment for Governor Raimondo. Does she listen to the concerns of her constituents, or does she cave to the desires of foreign billionaires? She says that the ultimate decision as to whether the plant gets built is in the hands of the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB), but if she drops her support, that will go a long way towards stopping the plant.

Residents are looking forward to her visit. It’s not often that the state’s leaders get to Burrillville, especially on an issue of such grave concern. Residents are rolling out the red carpet for her visit. She can expect to be well treated.

The residents of Burrillville have been polite to a fault when dealing with Governor Raimondo. Her invitation, by Kathy Martley from Burrillville Against Spectra Expansion (BASE) was accompanied by a flower and a home made card. When protesters hold signs at her events, they don’t attempt to disrupt the event, they simply remind the governor of the public’s concern.

This is not to say that Governor Raimondo can expect to charm Burrillvillians into accepting the power plant. The residents there have done their research, and they know that Invenergy has not been honest about the proposed plant’s environmental impact or about the need for the plant in the first place. She should expect to be confronted by the recent RIDEM data requests, which accuses Invenergy of submitting an application that contains, “several confusing and conflicting assertions about the purpose and need for the project.” She should expect to hear about the research that’s been done, the environmental tragedies Burrillville residents have already endured, and a case for saving the world from the ravages of the fossil fuel industry.

But though the meeting is bound to be emotional and the arguments will be made with passion, Burrillville is a town of good people.

July 14, 2016July 14, 2016

RIDEM issues blistering critique of Invenergy’s power plant application

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

RIDEM’s third data request to Invenergy, released yesterday, reads as a devastating critique of the proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant. If Governor Gina Raimondo was serious when she recently told ecoRI News that, “…if there are issues then the plant won’t go forward,” then the project is dead on arrival.

In addition to “missing info” that renders the application incomplete, on page 3 the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management notes that impact of the the various projects in Burrillville has been fragmented, making the cumulative impact of Invenergy’s proposed power plant; Spectra Energy’s Aim Project; Eversource Energy, National Grid and Spectra Energy’s Access Northeast project and TransCanada’s Ocean State Power difficult to determine.

“For the purposes of comparing costs and benefits to wildlife, all of the existing and proposed work related to increased natural gas operations (processing and transport) in Burrillville should be reviewed as a single and complete project,” says RIDEM, “Piecemeal review of related projects in different stages by different applicants undercounts their cumulative impacts from loss of forests and fragmentation, air, noise and light pollution etc. in an area of the state that has been a longstanding conservation priority.”

On page 7, RIDEM alleges that the “applicant makes several confusing and conflicting assertions about the purpose and need for the project…

“The emissions and cost-benefit analyses both primarily only list benefits. A proper analysis should include costs, yet there is no mention of loss of forests, biodiversity, ecosystem services etc… This seems particularly important since the application notes that the majority of the benefits outlined (e.g. construction jobs and energy costs savings) would be rather short-lived and the majority of the foreseeable costs would be long term or permanent.”

When it comes to selling the idea of a fracked gas power plant, the RIDEM data request accuses Invenergy of circular logic. “A pointed example includes dismissing hydropower in the Power Generation Alternatives section (and omitting it from all other sections) solely because it would not be appropriate on the proposed [power plant] site, which was selected for proximity to the gas line, and then dismissing alternative project locations because they do not have the desired natural gas infrastructure.”

Further, the “premise that natural gas is the only way to meet [New England’s energy] demand is not borne out by the information provided,” says RIDEM.

RIDEM’s report to the Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) will be shaped by Invenergy’s answers to these and other questions. Though these questions raise serious doubts about the need for the new plant and Invenergy’s integrity in preparing its application, ultimately the EFSB takes RIDEM’s report as advisory only, meaning the board could choose to approve the project despite these issues.

Yet Governor Gina Raimondo’s words, that “if there are issues then the plant won’t go forward,” ring loudly here. The issues raised in this set of data requests are serious, and the questions raised must be addressed honestly.

June 27, 2016June 27, 2016

Why should Burrillville care about Invenergy’s bad financial decisions?

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

At the most recent Burrillville Town Council meeting, Town Councillor Kimberly Briquette Brown made some curious remarks about Invenergy’s obligations to ISO-NE, the organization responsible for managing the supply of electricity to Rhode Island and neighboring states. Invenergy is planning to build a $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant in the town and residents of Burrillville strongly oppose the plant.

“It’s my understanding,” said Brissette Brown, “from speaking to Mike McElroy and learning about this just as much as everybody else has been over the last few months, that once the ISO had granted the power capacity in February to Invenergy, that regardless of whether not they enter into a tax agreement with the town, if they do not go forward with building the power plant they’re going to be fined, substantially, it’s my understanding, and I could be wrong, millions of dollars. At the time… there was a concern about the financial ramifications of leaving the bill to people that thought that by voting no to a tax agreement that they’d be basically sending the power company packing.”

The gist of her remarks seems to be that Burrillville town attorney Michael McElroy convinced her that the town might be on the hook financially for the fines that Invenergy might suffer for not delivering on its obligations to ISO-NE. I couldn’t see how this was possible, so I asked Jerry Elmer, senior attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), for his insight. The added emphasis is all mine:

By way of background, I explain in general that the results of FCA-10 show that the Invenergy plant is not needed, here.

And I am well aware of the fact that the mechanics of these FCAs can be complicated and difficult to understand; I provide some general background, here.

“In FCA-10, Invenergy bid both of its turbines, or 997 MW, into the ISO’s auction. However, in the actual auction, Invenergy cleared only one turbine, or 485 MW. Thus, Invenergy acquired a CSO of 485 MW. Invenergy agreed to provide electricity to the regional grid operator, ISO-NE, for a one-year period of time running from June 1, 2019 through May 31, 2020. This period of time is called Capacity Commitment Period 10 (CCP-10), and it corresponds to FCA-10. In return for agreeing to be available to the regional grid operator during that specified, future period, Invenergy will receive a stream of payments called capacity payments.

“In effect, Invenergy is selling a commodity, capacity, in return for a stream of money, called capacity payments. (And those links above provide some needed background that may help readers understand this.)

“In order to be allowed to participate in the ISO’s Forward Capacity Auction (FCA), Invenergy (or any other entity) had to first “qualify.” In order to qualify to participate in an auction, Invenergy (or any other entity) had to show that it had a realistic chance to actually build its proposed plant. (The ISO requires this, because the ISO is responsible for keeping our electricity grid reliable. ISO cannot keep the grid reliable if entities that acquire CSOs cannot actually build and operate power plants.) Invenergy (or any other entity) also has to put up a huge amount of “Financial Assurance” to even be allowed to participate in an FCA. FA is a kind of bond, a way of securing (guaranteeing) that Invenergy will be able to perform its obligation. FA would be forfeited if Invenergy (or any other entity) acquired a CSO (in an auction) but then did not actually have a plant built by the beginning of the CCP.

“So, now that Invenergy did acquire a CSO in FCA-10, is Invenergy irrevocably committed to building the proposed plant in Burrilville? The answer is unequivocally not.

“Could Invenergy abandon its proposed plant in Burrillville completely, and not lose the FA (bond) posted with ISO? The answer is unequivocally yes.

“To be sure, Invenergy could not just walk away from the plant. However, between today and June 1, 2019 (the beginning of CCP-10, when Invenergy’s CSO kicks in) the ISO will hold three separate Reconfiguration Auctions. One will occur about 2 years before June 1, 2019; one will occur about a year before June 1, 2019; and the last one will occur just before the start of CCP-10. At each of these Reconfiguration Auctions, buyers and sellers buy and sell CSOs to each other.

“Invenergy could – if it wanted to – sell out of its CSO in any one of those Reconfiguration Auctions. Of course, because the ISO is still responsible for keeping the New England electricity grid reliable, any entity that wanted to buy Invenergy’s 485-MW CSO would have to be qualified by the ISO to participate in the Reconfiguration Auction. The qualification process would be very similar to the qualification process for participating in an FCA – show that you either have a power plant already or could realistically build one in the remaining time allowed, and post FA.

“Invenergy could elect to sell out of its CSO in any of the next 3 ISO-run Reconfiguration Auctions for any one of a variety of reasons. For example, Invenergy could decide that the political climate in Rhode Island has turned against it, and that the plant might not be permitted by the Energy Facility Siting Board. (This could happen, say, if Governor Raimondo were persuaded to oppose the proposed plant as a result of overwhelming constituent pressure.) Or Invenergy could decide that the New England energy market is less lucrative than it thought it would be, and it is not worth building the plant. (In fact, the auction clearing price crashed from over $17 per kilowatt-month in FCA-9 to $7.03 per kilowatt month in FCA-10.) Or, Invenergy could sell out of its CSO for no other reason than that it thought it was profitable to do so. (Remember that whatever entity buys the CSO from Invenergy would be buying the right to a future stream of income. This is a valuable commodity, and it is entirely possible that Invenergy simply flips the CSO for a quick profit. Note that in that last sentence I mean “possible” as being completely within the ISO Market Rules; I am not suggesting that this is a likely course for Invenergy – only that it can be done.)

“In fact, Invenergy could sell out of its CSO in any one of the next three Reconfiguration Auctions for any reason it wanted to do so. The fact is that, having acquired a CSO on February 8 does not mean that the plant must inevitably be built, and does not mean that Invenergy is powerless to walk away without forfeiting the huge bond it posted with the ISO.

“In this scenario, the Town of Burrillville would not be on the hook for any of Invenergy’s CSO. In fact, the Town of Burrillville could almost certainly not be qualified by the ISO to buy Invenergy’s CSO. But, in any event, if Invenergy sold out of its CSO, the Town of Burrillville would have no liability for the CSO.”

So, in summary, the Town of Burrillville is in no way responsible for Invenergy’s bad decision to buy into a forward capacity energy market before being sure that they would be able to supply the energy required.

Invenergy made the promise, not Burrillville.

So I ask again, “Why should anyone in Burrillville care about bad decisions made by a Chicago based energy company? How is it possible that Burrillville should be liable for Invenergy’s bad business decisions?”

June 20, 2016June 20, 2016

Three Democratic challengers to make a run at Burrillville Town Council

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 Democratic Town Committee voted unanimously to endorse three candidates for town council. All three oppose the $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant proposed for the town by Invenergy and supported by the present town council.

“In all these cases,” said Committee Chairman Stephen Mulcahey, “we have candidates who are committed to opposing the proposed power plant. In addition, these candidates have the experience and capacity to govern past this one issue”.

The three candidates are:

Jim Alix, a retired school counselor (MSW). He and his wife, Kathy, a retired school teacher have been residents of Burrillville for over 30 years. Jim has been an active member of the Burrillville Parks and Rec program as well the Burrillville Extended Care Program.
Michael Dutilly, a career firefighter and union president of the Harrisville Fire Department. Mike is a lifelong resident of Burrillville and a graduate of Burrillville High School. Mike is married and has a newborn baby boy.
Bob Perreault, a multi-generational Burrillville resident. Bob is a retired Zambarano Hospital employee where he spent his career caring for patients. Bob was a Therapeutic Services provider and has a keen sense of empathy for our fellow residents at Zambarano Hospital.

It is thought that Councillors Nancy Binns and Kimberly Brissette Brown will not be seeking re-election. The only councillor up for re-election is Council President John Pacheco. Councillor David Place, not up for re-election, has plans to run for state representative, against Cale Keable. It’s unclear how this race would affect the make up of the Town Council.

A new Burrillville Town Council may come too late to have an impact on the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB)’s decision regarding the plant. Close observers say the current make up of the Town Council supports the plant 4-3, with Stephen Rawson, David Fox, Place and Binns in support and Pacheco, Brissete Brown and Michelle Bouchard against.

At the same meeting, the Burrillville Democratic Town Committee gave its endorsement for reelection to State Senator Paul Fogarty and State Rep. Cale Keable, who made an unsuccessful play in the State House to pass legislation that would give voters in Burrillville the opportunity to vote on any tax treaties the town council negotiates with energy companies in the town. That bill died in the Senate under “curious” conditions.

June 16, 2016June 16, 2016

Keable/Fogarty power plant bill: An autopsy

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

Perhaps the most honest statement to come out of the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding Paul Fogarty’s bill S3037A came in the hallway outside the hearing room after the vote, courtesy of Senator Leo Raptakis.

“What happened in there?” I asked.

“I don’t know,” replied Raptakis, “I don’t know why they brought it up for a vote at all.”

The confusion Raptakis felt was understandable. Normally, if you want to kill a bill in the General Assembly, you just never let it come to a vote. Eventually the session ends and the bill is dead.

So why bring the bill up for a vote? What was really going on?

Senator Paul Fogarty’s bill would have allowed the voters of Burrillville the opportunity to vote on any tax agreements made by their town council with any power plant located in the town. The immediate effect of the bill would be to allow voters to decide on a tax treaty being negotiated with Invenergy, which wants to build a $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant in the town. The Burrillville Town Council has been repeatedly dishonest with the residents of the town, and has been actively working to bring the power plant into the town against the wishes of most residents. Residents of Burrillville want a say in the process and they want to prevent the power plant from being built.

The House version of the bill, sponsored by Representative Cale Keable, passed out of the House Committee on Environment and Natural Resources on an 11-2 vote and passed the full House on June 8. The Senate version, after a long, contentious hearing that pitted Burrillville residents and environmentalists against labor and business, was tabled without a vote.

The forces in favor of the power plant did not want this bill to pass. It is believed by many that this bill will make it impossible for the power plant to be built, because it will interfere with Invenergy’s ability to secure financing for the project. A stable tax treaty is important to Invenergy because without it, the company faces the prospect of paying full taxes on the power plant. No tax treaty, no funding, some say.

In an effort to kill the bill, Invenergy paid for a full page ad in the Providence Journal. An editorial and an op-ed were published in the paper as well. Pressure was brought to bear on the Senate from the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce and the Northern Rhode Island Chamber of Commerce whose lobbyists testified against the bills. And labor, which wants the plant built because of the much needed jobs it will provide, lobbied the Senate hard.

Meanwhile, there was pressure being placed on Governor Gina Raimondo by environmentalists to not veto the bill, were it to be passed. Raimondo did not want to be put in the position of having to veto this bill. She wants the public appearance of being strong on environmental issues, even if she supports fracking and fossil fuels. For Raimondo’s purposes, the less known on the national scene about her true environmental positions, the better. Vetoing this bill would create the wrong kind of headlines, the kind of headlines that might hamper her national political ambitions.

Satisfying these powerful players is easy. All that needed to happen was for the bill to never get out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the bill would die, never to be voted on. There’s only one problem: If that were to happen, Senator Paul Fogarty would have failed the community he serves, and though Fogarty, for political reasons, is opposed to the power plant and in favor of his bill, he’s a strong union member and supporter. Under normal circumstances he would be a reliable pro-union vote and a valuable ally.

A way to both kill the bill and save Paul Fogarty’s political career was therefore devised.

Four Senators, Frank Lombardi, William Conley, Donna Nesselbush and Stephen Archambault, presented legal-sounding arguments against the bill, all the while telling Burrillville residents watching the proceedings live or at home how wonderful their Senator Paul Fogarty is. They laid it on pretty thick at times.

“Kudos to Senator Fogarty for the concerns that he showed his constituency in the town of Burrillville,” said Senator Lombardi, “and [for] having the intestinal fortitude to bring forth the bill on the behalf of his constituents.

“And I mean this, Senator,” continued Lombardi, looking at Fogarty who was seated in the center of the room, “I think that the people of the town of Burrillville are very fortunate to have you as their Senator and the work that you do for them. Quite frankly you listened to them and you put forth what you thought was a very favorable bill for your citizenry.”

Not to be out done, Senator Conley said, “Senator Fogarty’s advocacy on behalf of the people of Burrillville on this issue was extraordinary. I’m just about at the close of my fourth year in the General Assembly and I can say without reservation that I’ve never seen one of my colleagues advocate in such a meaningful and, I don’t want to say aggressive but certainly in a strong way, on behalf of legislation. His heart and soul is behind this bill and whether you agree with one of your colleagues or not, it’s always that kind of advocacy in this building that often goes unsung. So it’s important to note that.”

Senator Nesselbush was more circumspect in her praise, saying, “Senator Fogarty has been a passionate supporter of this bill that he even convinced me to be a co-sponsor of the bill.”

Senator Archambault, who might run for Attorney General in 2018, also chimed in with praise for Fogarty, “I want to echo the sentiments of my brothers and sister with respect to Senator Fogarty. He’s been here for you all along, he’s put in a tough piece of legislation, it certainly hasn’t made him any friends on one side but he did it because he cares. I think his actions speak for themselves.” After this performance, I don’t think any environmentalists will be voting for him.

With Senator Fogarty properly lionized and hopefully protected, all the Senators needed was an excuse, any excuse, to vote against the bill. As it is, they produced three excuses. They also needed someone to blame. They couldn’t blame the business community, they couldn’t blame the Governor and they couldn’t blame labor.

Enter the Republican Burrillville Town Council with their press release turned resolution. At the original Senate Judiciary Committee meeting to discuss the bill, Senator Lombardi foolishly tried to pass off a press release against the bill from the town council as a resolution, but in fact the Burrillville Town Council didn’t get around to issuing an actual resolution until the committee meeting was almost over. But now, with a “proper” resolution in hand, Lombardi was able to produce a villain: the Burrillville Town Council.

In his statement after the vote, Fogarty expressed his disappointment at the bills defeat, but did not blame the vote on his fellow senators. Instead, he referred to the resolution, writing that the “last-minute opposition of the Town Council… [was] the equivalent of getting two torpedoes to the bow.”

“It’s a shame that the Burrillville Town Council does not have enough faith and confidence in the local citizenry to make an informed decision on a matter that will impact the future of their community,” wrote Fogarty, forgetting that it was the Senate Judiciary Committee, not the Burrillville Town Council that killed the bill.

Lombardi’s second excuse was that he was concerned about the precedent that passing the bill would set. He said that when the residents of a city or town disagree with their elected officials, they shouldn’t be looking to the state to pass new laws. Lombardi feared that the General Assembly might be flooded with every local issue that is “controversial” if they passed this bill. Of course, it’s fairly easy to find dozens of examples where the state has stepped in to override local laws and ordinances. The very creation of the Energy Facilities Siting Board, the body that will ultimately decide whether or not the power plant will be built, is an example of the state overriding local concerns and laws, for instance.

Lastly, Lombardi noted that one of his colleagues “was gracious enough to provide us with a Rhode Island Supreme Court case entitled Warwick Mall Trust v State of Rhode Island.” Sources told me that the court case was provided to Lombardi and the other senators by Senate Majority Leader Dominick Ruggerio, a strong supporter of labor who sat in on the original Senate Judiciary Committee meeting that heard testimony on this bill.

Lombardi said that the decision in this case could be applied to Fogarty’s bill, and claimed that the bill, as written, would be unconstitutional.

In the end, of course, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted Fogarty’s bill down. It was such an unusual occurrence that Chairman Michael McCaffrey couldn’t quite get his head around how it was supposed to work. As the chairman struggled to find the right way to phrase a no vote, two Capitol Police Officers entered the room, to make sure the crowd did not react aggressively to the decision everyone seemed to know was coming. The vote was 7 -2 against. Only Nesselbush and Erin Lynch Prada voted in favor of the bill.

The disappointment of the Burrillville residents could be felt physically. There were tears. Nick Katkevich, of the FANG Collective, shouted “Shame!” as he was leaving the room. The Capitol Police responded by telling Katkevich to leave, but he was already gone. Out in the hallway, there were more hugs and tears among the Burrillville residents.

They say they will continue the fight.

Looking over every single Senate Judiciary Committee vote this session, you will find that every bill brought up for a vote passed. In fact, every bill before this committee, but two, passed with no votes against them. The two exceptions were S2333 on May 5 and S2505 on March 3, and both times it was Senator Harold Metts casting the lone vote against. Until this day, six of the senators present had not cast a no vote in committee this year.

The truth is that no one is ever really supposed to vote no. These committee votes are pro forma. It’s theater. Every vote serves a purpose and no bill is voted on in committee without a predetermined outcome known well in advance.

And the vote on Paul Fogarty’s bill was no different.

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 11, 2016

Raimondo coming to Burrillville July 18

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

Over a month after agreeing to meet with Burrillville residents while in Warwick and one day after members of the FANG Collective and BASE intercepted her a second time at a community event on the East Side of Providence, Governor Gina Raimondo has agreed to a date and time. It has now been officially announced that Governor Gina Raimondo will be at the Burrillville High School, 425 East Ave, Harrisville, for a community meeting Monday, July 18 from 6 PM – 9 PM to discuss the proposed power plant.

After months of trying to get the governor to come to the town through more conventional channels, Kathy Martley, co-founder of BASE (Burrillville Against Spectra Expansion), presented the Governor with a flower and a home made card at an event in Warwick. The Governor agreed then to come to Burrillville. On Thursday night Martley followed up with the governor outside the First Unitarian Church of Providence. The governor agreed to set a date and time the following day.

On Thursday evening the governor was noncommittal on the Keable/Fogarty bill and said that she will make a final decision on it once it reaches her desk, but the next day, while taping an episode of Channel 12 Newsmakers with Tim White and Ted Nesi, Raimondo said that she will be “very likely to” veto the bill. The Governor told Nesi and White that she was opposed to the bill’s “retro-activity feature” which changes the process at the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) even as Invenergy, the company that wants to build a $700 million fracked gas and diesel burning power plant in Burrillville, is engaged in the process.

“This isn’t about, necessarily, whether you are for or against natural gas, we have a process,” said Raimondo, “You cannot change the rules of the game halfway through the game if you want to be a business friendly state.”

I’ve talked before about Raimondo and her emphasis of business over democracy. The process that Raimondo is defending is one that favors the interests of billion dollar corporations over the people of Rhode Island. The people of Burrillville are demanding that this process be corrected in the interests of the people.

If given a choice, would you rather live in a business friendly state, or a democracy friendly state?

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.]

June 6, 2016

On Burrillville power plant, Janet Coit shows concern for the environment and/or future lawsuits

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

The June 2 open meeting of the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) was a rare opportunity to hear board members Margaret Curran, Janet Coit and Parag Agrawal talk openly about their thoughts regarding the process of the board in approving or denying Invenergy‘s proposed fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant in Burrillville. That said, it’s also a bad idea to draw too many inferences about board members thoughts based on their words.

One example of this came near the end of the 45 minute meeting. Janet Coit, who directs the RI Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) when she’s not on the EFSB, suggested directing RIDEM to expand their advisory opinions on the environmental impact to include impact on wetlands, impact on state conservation areas and the cumulative impact of all fossil fuel development in the area, including pipeline compressors and the Ocean State Power Plant.

It would be easy to see Coit’s suggestion, which was approved unanimously by the board, as indicative of a concern about environmental impacts and as a response to the concerns of community members who have spoken at one or more of the open comment hearings held in Burrillville. But Coit’s suggestion may be no more than an attempt to make sure all the bases are covered. Getting advisory impact statements does not take away the EFSB’s ability to rubber stamp the power plant. It just provides the board with appropriate legal cover.

Chair Curran was on board with the suggestion that the cumulative effects the fossil fuel infrastructure in Burrillville might have on wildlife, saying, “I’m partial to the bats.” But again, her concern for the bats might dissipate in the light of Invenergy’s desire to build a new power plant where it is not wanted.

Coit also suggested that the EFSB take “official notice” of the court order that closed the MTBE contaminated well in Pascoag, the same well that Invenergy hopes to use to cool their turbines on the promise of cleaning up the contamination. The well was sealed after many families became due to the MTBE in their water. As a result of Coit’s suggestion the court order has become part of the official record.

There were no public comments allowed at this meeting, and no lawyers from any of the intervenors were allowed to ask questions or comment. The meeting was for the three board members to “discuss, deliberate and decide” on various aspects of the hearing process. They started by denying one “late intervention” of an abutting property owner and approving another. The difference between the two applicants seemed to be that one applicant was zoned for residential and business, a special case that may require a separate lawyer.

Todd Bianco, coordinator of the EFSB, ran through the current status of the advisory opinions the board has requested. Most of the opinions seem to be roughly on schedule. Surprisingly, Invenergy has yet to apply for the proper permits from the RI Department of Transportation (RIDOT). Under current rules, it would take RIDOT three months to process the applications, and Bianco said RIDOT was “unable to determine if the applications will be on time.”

The meeting ended with a discussion of how to do better outreach with the public. Bianco said that he continues to run advertisements for meetings in the ProJo and in two local Burrillville publications. This lead to a discussion of whether or not to have a Twitter account for the EFSB.

“It would be my first,” said Bianco, “I could learn how to tweet, and hashtags are a thing…”

May 24, 2016May 24, 2016

Burrillville flipping the script on proposed 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 people of Burrillville realize something about the the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB), that Margaret Curran, who chairs the board, does not. During Monday night’s public comment meeting, held to decide the fate of of Invenergy’s proposed fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant, Curran several times tried to stop the crowd from rising and cheering and clapping when someone from the public made a particularly smart or heartfelt point during their five minutes before the board. Other times Curran would attempt to cut speakers off, even as the crowd became agitated and yelled, “Let them speak!”

“You’re taking time from other people by going over your time limit,” Curran would say, but Curran didn’t seem to realize that the community of Burrillville is united. Everyone who rose in opposition to the power plant speaks not just for themselves, but for everyone.

Burrillville itself is speaking through its people, and the Town is saying “No.”

This became very clear when Jennifer Bailey rose, and respectfully requested that her time be give the RI State Senator Paul Fogarty. Fogarty and State Representative Cale Keable have been publicly against this power plant for some time. Last week Keable introduced legislation that would make the approval of the power plant much less likely. Fogarty will introduce the Senate version of the bill today.

As Fogarty approached the podium, the crowd rose in a standing ovation. Fogarty noted the large crowd in the auditorium and the large crowds at previous events as proof that the citizens overwhelmingly don’t want the power plant.

“In all my time as State Senator from Burrillville, I can honestly say I have never seen the citizens come out so strongly and so passionately against something as they have against this proposed power plant.”

Fogarty also noted that the decision to site the power plant in Burrillville falls to “three people who don’t have a stake here.”

“One is from Barrington, one from Providence, and a third person literally just parachuted in from Bridgeport, Connecticut. Shaping the future of Burrillville should belong to the residents of Burrillville and no one else.” Parag Agrawal, the new Associate Director at the RI Division of Planning, and the third member of the EFSB, is from Bridgeport.

This earned Fogarty his second standing ovation. He received a third as he finished.

This is the second thing Margaret Curran doesn’t seem to understand about this phase of the proceedings that the residents of Burrillville have figured out. The EFSB comports itself as a quasi-judiciary body, carefully collecting and evaluating evidence, testimony and reports before rendering a final decision. Yet ever since Invenergy announced the plant with the strong and unwavering support of Governor Gina Raimondo, the building of the plant has appeared to be a done deal, and all the EFSB hearings have been seen as little more than political theater.

The residents of Burrillville, conscripted as actors in this this production, are changing the script even as the play is being performed. The production is going awry, and getting it back on course may prove to be impossible.

As Fogarty left the podium Curran noted that the next speaker, Jeremy Bailey, had spoken at previous meetings. “Didn’t you already speak?” she asked.

“I have a lot to say but I’m going to respectfully yield my time to our [State] Representative Cale Keable,” said Bailey.

Another standing ovation. Cable wore a green “No New Power Plant” shirt. Last week he introduced legislation in the General assembly that gave more power to the residents of Burrillville concerning any potential tax treaties their Town Council might negotiate with Invenergy. The legislation, if passed, would make the building of the power plant much less likely.

“We ask the board for one simple thing,” said Keable, “Please, let us alone.”

In all, 38 people spoke during the meeting. Five spoke in favor, 33 spoke in opposition.

David Esten spoke in favor.

John Scott brought up Flint MI., asking “What judge is going to authorize opening a poison well?”

“Governor Raimondo talks about tourism,” said Scott, “Our tourism is camp grounds.”

Ken Putnam Jr is about to be a great grandfather. He said, “I don’t talk like this. A lot of people can’t take the time out to come here. Kill this plant. We don’t need it.”

If Invenergy can’t get the date right for a flier, how are they to be counted on to build a power plant, asked Erin Olkowski.

Stephanie Sloman is an environmental engineer. She strongly believes in integrity. “I found a multitude of contradictions in Invenergy’s application… the plant will use natural gas as long as it is economically feasible. We know what this means… the plant wants to use 19 percent aqueous among a because at 20 it has to be monitored by the DEM.”

“When a monster comes into my house, I have to do everything in my power to slay it,” said Sloman, “my home is not just Burrillville, not just Rhode Island, or even the United States, my home is the world.”

Anita Bevans said Invenergy mislead the town when they said they would conform to local laws. In their application Invenergy said they would defer to state and federal laws.

Jaimie Tessier said that her morality was questioned at the first meeting when a union member said that she would sell out he home for money. Keeping her son, who has a medical condition that keeps him on a respirator full time, is her highest priority she says. “That’s where my morals are. Where are yours?”

“I voted for Gina Raimondo,” sais Frances DiPoiceglia noting they share a common heritage and upbringing, “but after a couple of years, I don’t think I’d vote for her again.”

“Fracking is not needed, and it’s not cool.” Says Frances DiPoisceglia. “We reject the Invenergy power plant.”

Judy Aubin said that she does her due diligence when she is on a board. “I know for a fact that you are over ruled by Gina Raimondo.”

Burrillville doesn’t need industry, said Aubin. The people live here because it lacks industry.

“These people wouldn’t mind a little raise in their taxes to avoid this power plant.”

“I am unaware of any environmental policies recommending the use of natural gas power plants,” said James Libby.

Terri Lacey asked how an area can go from environmentally spectacular and beneficial, as mentioned in a piece by RIDEM’s Janet Coit, to suitable for a polluting power plant.

Earl McWilliams believes that Invenergy has a series of plan B’s in mind for their power plant. He read the application to mean that Invenergy is not responsible for properly cleaning the MTBE water. Once built, if Invenergy needs more water, he sees the company tapping Wall Lake.

Brian Sclofield has a 4 year old daughter and 1 year old son and refuses to take on significant health risk to his children from the proposed plant. If the plant is built it’s not a matter of if, but when he will move.

Lawyer Barry Craig said Invenergy not assuming liability for the MTBE well when opened is grounds for dismissing the application.

“There isn’t a pipeline in this world that doesn’t leak,” said Craig, “We need eco-terrorism insurance in place… There is plenty of clean energy supply out there. There is no immediate need for this plant.”

Christopher Aubin recalled that Invenergy’s Director of Development John Niland said that last year was so mild he wouldn’t have needed to use oil. But diesel fuel breaks down. There’s no way it wouldn’t be burned. “You’re lying!” said Aubin.

“Big companies don’t care about the small people,” said Aubin, “Once you get this plant hooked up, John Niland, what’s your bonus?”

Kevin Frenette wanted to know if the EFSB can help people who are being impacted by these big energy projects. He managed to get Janet Coit to respond, but she still wouldn’t address his concerns.

“So we just get to tell you how we feel and that’s it?”

Meg Curran responded, by saying she can’t respond.

“Your time is up,” says Curran.

The crowd boos.

Leigh Gilbert is in favor of the plant and that said the town needs money, so the town needs the power plant. The crowd tells him to sit down.

Roy Colombe is for the project.

Greg Mancini, a lawyer for the Building Trades, said that many members won’t speak tonight because of the hostile environment created by the opposition. He mentioned the First Amendment and a chilling effect.

Andrew Hessler, 17 years old, said Gina Raimondo is all about fracked gas since Goldman Sachs wrote her a big check. She used to be for renewables. An impressive testimony.

Governor Raimondo, “has a chance to be on the right side of this issue,” said Burrillville resident and Teamster Ron Lizotte.

“My son was affected by MTBE I’m the water,” said Norman Desjarlais, “my grandson is on chemotherapy, which doctors have linked to gas additives.”

Paul Lander of the RI Carpenters Union is for this project, but he was very impressed with the Burrillville resident’s knowledge and passion. He says that we need to hold Invenergy’s feet to the fire.

Stacy Slekis objected to the power plant. She brought a picture from her daughter, asking the EFSB not to “mess up” our town.

Don Allen said if you could pick the worst place to place a power plant based on prevailing winds, Burrillville would be the worst.

“We’re vetting this Governor after the fact,” said Allen, “she has an agenda.”

Lisa Petrie, arrested at the State House protesting the Invenergy power plant, says the goals of the Resilient RI Act van’t be met if this power plant is built.

“We need dramatic cuts in our greenhouse gas emissions starting now, not ten years from now. Now,” said Petrie.

“Prisons create jobs. Wars create jobs,” said Lisa Petrie, “but we can create more jobs through renewable energy.”

“There is no such thing as a clean fossil fuel power plant,” said Mike Lamoureux, “You can tell by all the permits needed to build one.”

Chair Curran asked Paul A. Roselli not to speak, since he had spoken at a previous meeting. “If I had been told that before hand,” said Roselli, “I wouldn’t have put my name on the list. But since I wasn’t, I’d like to speak.”

Cynthia Crook-Pick wanted to speak plainly to the EFSB. The fact this board is the only body that can make this decision is against the principles of democracy and all that this country stands for, she said.

Debbie Krieg told of the battle to close the MTBE well, and worries that “this monster” will be unleashed when Invenergy uses the well water to cool the plant. There has been no site every cleaned up as Invenergy claims it can do.

New to this area, Ewa Roselli says she is really impressed with this community and she is eager to make friends. She asked Invenrgy, “Do you hate us? Why are you wanting to hurt us? How many people here would protest solar?”

“Nobody!” says the crowd.

Deborah Yablonski is from NYC but she’s a Burrillville farmer now. She raises chickens and goats. “I became a steward of the land.”

Thomas Trimble has a map that shows a nature corridor that runs from Canada to Burrillville. The power plant is right in the middle of this corridor.

Lynn Clark said the plant is being proposed for the heart of Burrillville’s forested area. It will have a “direct, negative impact.”

Justin Kelley, from the Painter’s Union, is a friend of mine. He supports this plant. “I’m the guy who looks in the workers eyes when they can’t pay their bills or are evicted from their homes.”

Donald Champiany read Invenergy CEO’S own words against him. Brilliant.

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 19, 2016May 20, 2016

Keable, Fogarty propose changes to power plant approval rules 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

After a meeting with Governor Gina Raimondo, Rep. Cale Keable and Sen. Paul Fogarty introduced legislation that would give residents in Burrillville the ability to vote on “any tax agreement negotiated between the Burrillville Town Council and the developers of a proposed power plant in town be subject to voter approval.” Keable and Fogarty represent voters in Burrillville.

On Facebook, Keable described Raimondo as “gracious.” According to Keable, “We re-iterated the points in our letter to the [Energy Facilities] Siting Board (EFSB) and asked her to use the power of her office to stop the power plant. She listened to each of our concerns and stated that she is currently planning a meeting in Burrillville to hear directly from the people. She asked good questions about our concerns and showed an understanding of the issues. I came away from the meeting believing that she has real concerns about this project’s impact on water, children and the environment.”

Keable and Fogarty also gave the Governor a pile of emails, petitions and correspondence from Burrillville residents opposed to the power plant, as well as a bumper sticker, tee shirt and a lawn sign. (see picture)

In addition to allowing Burrillville residents the ability to vote on tax treaties negotiated by the Town Council, the legislation also makes changes to the EFSB. The number of seats on the board would be increased from three to nine members, including the chairperson of the Commerce Corporation (the state’s economic development agency), the general manager of the state Water Resources Board, the director of the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns, and three members of the public.

In addition, of the three members of the public, “one must be experienced in environmental issues, one in energy issues and one in labor issues,” and “None must have received a significant portion of their income in the previous two years from the developer of an energy facility or an electric, gas or oil company.”

A final feature of the bill mandates that the EFSB must take into consideration “any resolution regarding” applications for new power plants.

You can read the full press release here:

Rep. Cale P. Keable and Sen. Paul W. Fogarty are introducing legislation to require that any tax agreement negotiated between the Burrillville Town Council and the developers of a proposed power plant in town be subject to voter approval.

The legislation, which emanates from Invenergy’s pending proposal to build a 1000-megawatt, fracked gas power plant in Pascoag, was introduced in response to the frustration expressed by residents and elected officials of Burrillville and across the state regarding their lack of input into the approval process.

“The people of Burrillville are the ones who will lose our unspoiled woods and instead get pollution, risk to our water supply, traffic and noise. We deserve a say in the matter, and this is one way to provide it,” said Representative Keable (D-Dist. 47, Burrillville, Glocester).

The legislation, which was introduced in the House today and is expected to be introduced in the Senate next week, would alter an existing state law that applies only to Burrillville and was enacted in 1987 to allow the town to negotiate a tax treaty with Ocean State Power, the 560-MW power plant in Burrillville that began operating in 1990.

Representative Keable’s and Senator Fogarty’s legislation adds a clause to the law that would subject any such tax agreement to a binding referendum of town voters. If that referendum can’t be held at the same time as a regular election, the entity proposing the plant would be required to pay the town’s costs of holding it.

“The people of our districts have spoken loud and clear. However, under current law, all they can do is ask for consideration from those who get to make the decision. That’s not right, and we intend to do something about it,” said Senator Fogarty (D-Dist. 23, Glocester, Burrillville, North Smithfield). “Every single voter in Burrillville deserves the opportunity to have a real say in whether they are going to host another power plant.”

The legislation also adds to the membership of the Energy Facilities Siting Board, currently a three-member panel that includes the chairperson of the Public Utilities Commission, the director of the Department of Environmental Management and the state associate director of administration for planning. The bill adds six new members: the chairperson of the Commerce Corporation (the state’s economic development agency), the general manager of the state Water Resources Board, the director of the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns, and three members of the public. Of the members of the public, one must be experienced in environmental issues, one in energy issues and one in labor issues. None must have received a significant portion of their income in the previous two years from the developer of an energy facility or an electric, gas or oil company. The sponsors say the change would add diverse viewpoints to the board so decisions about power plant locations are made with careful consideration toward the environment and natural resources, the state’s business development strategies, the needs of cities and towns and the opinions of residents.

The bill also adds a requirement that prior to issuing any decision on an application for a power plant, the EFSB must take into consideration any resolution regarding it.

May 19, 2016May 19, 2016

More confusion, not clarity, from the Burrillville Town Council

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

At the second “special meeting” of the Burrillville Town Council, held as a semi-official “workshop” to allow discussion of various aspects of Invenergy‘s plan to build a fracked gas and diesel oil burning electrical plant in the town, the agenda, entitled “Hour on Power II” claimed that the “fundamentals of municipal tax agreements” would be discussed. Potential tax agreements with Invenergy are a very contentious issue, because under state law, as explained by Conservation Law Foundation Senior Attorney Jerry Elmer, Burillville has the right to set the property taxes on the plant at any level it chooses, yet Town Solicitor Oleg Nikolyszyn, it seems, disagrees, maintaining that the Town must negotiate a fair tax treaty with Invenergy.

Expecting that there would be expert legal advice on offer, many residents made the trip to this special meeting, only to find that there were no lawyers or expert advice on offer. Instead, the Town Council introduced Dr. Robin Muksian, a resident of Burrillville who currently serves as executive director of operations for the Providence School Department. She holds a Ph.D. in rhetoric and composition. Speaking as someone with some experience in negotiating deals between the state and private citizens, (she claims to have once lost a strip of land to the state in some kind of imminent domain situation) Muksian said that under state law, the town “must” negotiate with Invenergy, they can’t just set the tax at what ever rate they wish. Jerry Elmer explained otherwise, quite clearly, here.

Muksian misquoted the statute, advancing the idea that under state law 44-3-30, Burrillville “must negotiate” with Invenergy for a fair tax treaty, when the law actually states that town may “determine, by ordinance or resolution, an amount of taxes to be paid each year”. The plain text of the law does not contain the word negotiate, and if other laws on the books do contain such a provision, it does not matter, because 44-3-30 starts with the words, “Notwithstanding any other provisions of the general laws to the contrary,” meaning that 44-3-30 supersedes any other laws governing such negotiations.

Muksian also admitted to coming to the power plant issue late, and that she hadn’t attended any of the Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) meetings held in the town so far. This might explain why she thought that residents could bring questions to the EFSB, instead of just comments. The EFSB does not respond to residents at these meetings, yet Muksian said that questions should be brought to the EFSB at these meetings.

Under questioning from Burrillville resident Paul Lefebvre, Muksian at first dodged the question of whether or not she opposed the building of the new power plant. It took Lefebvre several questions before Muksian reluctantly said that she opposes the plant. For some reason she seemed at first to strike a more neutral position.

Most of Muksian’s talk is in the first half hour of the video below. Note that the meeting took place in Burrillville’s beautiful Assembly Theater, which was dark and not kind to video or photography. The Town Council is on the stage, well lit. The rest of those in attendance, not so much.

Many in attendance were asking themselves why Muksian was given so much time to expound on legal issues she was clearly not qualified to speak about. She constantly prefaced her comments by saying that she was “speaking as a resident of Burrillville” and that she wasn’t a lawyer. That raised an important question for the Town Council that went unanswered: Why Muksian and not any other non-lawyer resident of Burrillville?

After the meeting a resident told me that there is a rumor that Muksian is being considered for the position of Town Manager. Michael Wood, the current Town Manager, was not in attendance at the meeting, and Council President John Pacheco, from the stage, made a pointed comment about Wood’s contract being up for renewal in February of 2017. During the meeting, when a resident suggested that Michael Wood be fired, there was a standing ovation.

Wood has alienated many in the town with what one resident characterized as his “imperious” attitude. Further, in the April 23 Burrillville Bugle, delivered to every resident’s mailbox every month, Wood made comments that seemed to indicate his support for the new power plant and disregarded the environmental and health concerns of residents. For instance, he said, “the negative effects of the existing power plant, Ocean State, is not “anything to be overly concerned about.” Many feel that the over all tenor of his comments in the Bugle indicate that he supports building the plant.

Town Councillor Kimberly Brissette-Brown

As a result, the residents of Burrillville distrust Wood’s judgement when it comes to the hiring of experts to review the proposed plant’s impact on health, environment, wildlife, water quality, noise etc. They also distrust his ability to negotiate with Invenergy wisely, with the best interests of the town in mind.

A breath of fresh air came to the meeting about 82 minutes into it. Barry Craig, an actual lawyer (though not one licensed to practice law in Rhode Island) and a Burrillville resident, rose to call out the Town Council and Town Solicitor Oleg Nikolyszyn on what he termed their timidity in dealing with Invenergy.

Craig attended the first EFSB meeting in Burrillville. He thought, “it was very poorly managed.” He called the set up of the meeting, with the applicants (Invenergy’s Director of Development John Niland and his lawyers) on stage and the residents of Burrillville below them in the seats of the auditorium was “an insult.”

Craig said that to defeat this plant, the residents of Burrillville, through their Town Council, must “vigorously oppose” the plant. Craig came to the special town council meeting last night because he read the legal opinions of Town Solicitor Nikolyszyn, made in response to questions posed by residents. “At best,” said Craig, “I read these responses as being timid, at worst I read these responses as responses that discourage action rather than encourage action.”

For instance, the proper answer to the question, “Can the town council find new solutions to prevent locating the power plant in Burrillville?” isn’t to note that the EFSB has enormous power, the answer, says Craig, is, “Can we find creative ways of dealing with this issue? … Anything that delays this project makes it less likely… Companies like this work on a time schedule. If they can’t get a project done within a particular time frame they move onto the next project.”

One thing that became very clear in last night’s Burrillville Town council meeting is that discussing complex legal issues without lawyers present is a waste of time. Perhaps Muksian’s appearance was an audition for a future job, perhaps she’s just a citizen who waded into waters over her head, but her advice and commentary were worse than a waste of time: They spread dangerous misinformation, misinformation that will weaken the Town’s resolve and ability to fight Invenergy’s plans for the town.

Burrillville doesn’t need more bullshit. Burrillville needs courageous leadership ready to fight Invenergy with everything they have, or they will be living with the first of a series of such power plants very soon.

May 11, 2016May 11, 2016

Burrillville rallies against power plant at Siting Board hearing, part II

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

By the end of the nearly four hours of testimony before the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) concerning Invenergy‘s proposed fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant in Burrillville on Tuesday night, 41 people had spoken. Six people spoke in favor of the plant, mostly union laborers hoping for jobs. One person gave testimony that was difficult to follow, so I’m not sure if he supported or opposed the plant, and one man spoke twice. Thirty four people, mostly Burrillville residents, spoke against the plant, often emotionally but just as often with hard facts.

The hearing was actually a continuation of the first public comment meeting, held March 30. That hearing was better attended by both the residents of Burrillville and the union, but it’s possible attendance was down due to a misleading advertisement place in the Bargain Buyer by Invenergy. The meeting was better run this time. EFSB Chairperson Margaret Curran set out the rules and the timing early, and for the most part the process went smoothly, though sometimes things became heated between residents and the laborers. There were many police officers on duty, both state and local. At one point I counted nine.

The hearing also acted as our introduction to this ongoing drama’s latest cast member, Parag Agrawal, the new Associate Director at the RI Division of Planning. For the first time the EFSB functioned with a full board. The third member is Janet Coit, Director of RI’s Department of Environmental Management.

Below find all the testimony, in order.

Ten year old Briella Bailey got the evening off to a good start when she spoke the the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB). Bailey went over her allotted five minutes, and her testimony played well with those in attendance, so it would have been a bad move for Curran to cut her off. Besides, Bailey wasn’t the last person to go over time.

Amanda Mainville gave very cool testimony, comparing Invenergy’s Director of Development John Niland to the villain of the Dr. Suess classic, The Lorax. It was the first of two Dr. Suess references of the night.

Paul MacDonald, Burrillville resident and President of the Providence Central Federated Council and Legislative Director of Teamsters Local 251 spoke in favor of the power plant. His testimony was more nuanced than that given by union members and leaders at the last hearing. In a nod towards the concerns of environmentalists, MacDonald maintained that, “If the environment cannot support it, I’m against it.”

Part of Invenergy’s plan is to use well water contaminated by MTBE to cool the turbines. Burrillville’s legacy with this dangerous gasoline additive is painfully explored in the testimony given below. The people of Burrillville have already suffered through one toxic nightmare. They are loathe to invite another into their lives.

More incredible and brave testimony from Donna Woods. Her personal story is extrememely powerful…

Linda Nichols is considering a run for office. Her testimony might just be her first step towards getting elected.

May 11, 2016May 11, 2016

Invenergy accused of running misleading ad in Burrillville Bargain Buyer

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

At Tuesday night’s Energy Facilities Siting Board Meeting (EFSB), with Invenergy‘s Director of Development John Niland in attendance, angry residents accused the company of running a deliberately deceptive ad in the Bargain Buyer regarding the timing and location of the meeting.

“Today, in every mailbox in Burrillville, The Bargain Buyer, which is our Bible in Burrillville, was delivered,” said Raymond Trinque, “Any clear thinking person would see this as a dirty trick by Invenergy.”

The advertisement, (pictured) says the meeting will be held on Thursday night at the Burrillville High School. The meeting was held Tuesday night at the Burrillville Middle School. The date, May 10, is correct. Social media contained reports from people who say that some residents arrived at the High School for the meeting only to go home. Residents worry that others may arrive on Thursday evening for a meeting that’s over.

The remedy for this “bold-faced lie”, said Trinque to the EFSB Board, is to schedule another meeting at Invenergy’s expense.

Stacy Slekis echoed Trinque’s remarks, telling Niland, who remained silent on stage throughout the night, “Very well played on your mis-advertisement. We clearly are smart enough to know that this was not a mistake, but rather a carefully orchestrated tactic and an unethical business practice.”

Niland and Invenergy did not reply to a request for a comment on this.

On Facebook, Kimberly Breault Sheeley, who works for the Bargain Buyer as a graphic designer, wrote, “…the bargain buyer did not typeset that ad… they did the ad themselves …so don’t blame us…”

This isn’t the first time Invenergy has allegedly messed up the process of notifying the public about meetings. Residents pointed to two other times when email invitations to meetings were either not sent to all residents or sent after the date of the meeting has come and gone.

[I will have more on the EFSB hearing later today.]

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