Energy Facilities Siting Board

October 29, 2016

Burrillville residents refuse to drink tax treaty Kool-Aid

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

2016-10-27 Burrillville Town Council 07 — Michael McElroy

Wednesday night’s Burrillville Town Council meeting hearkened back to the early days of public opposition against Invenergy’s $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant planned for the town. Back then, we saw a public that was distrustful of the town council, and a town council that was not receptive to the idea of opposing the power plant, early on claiming to be powerless against the combined might of Invenergy, Governor Gina Raimondo’s office and regulators.

The town council then took the position, contrary to the Open Meetings Act, that people in the town were only allowed to talk about issues and subjects that were specifically listed on the town council’s agenda, cutting off discussion about the Algonquin pipeline if the power plant was on the agenda, or vice versa. In December of last year, calls from the town council to trust them elicited groans of dismay from the audience.

Then, in April of this year, it was learned that the town council had been in secret negotiations for a tax treaty with Invenergy for months. The town council was still forcing residents to only speak about “agenda items” and working hard to curtail public discussion, contrary to the Open Meetings Act. The growing resistance in Burrillville to the power plant felt disempowered. Not only were they fighting a multi-billion dollar power plant company funded by a Russian oligarch, they were fighting both the state and local governments. The fight seemed impossible and trust between the town council and residents couldn’t be worse. Or so they thought.

At an April 14 town council meeting Council President John Pacheco said that the town council learned about Invenergy’s plans when everyone else did, during a press conference held by Governor Raimondo announcing the plant, saying, “As a town council, we did not know this plant was actually going to happen until the Governor announced it.”

This turned out to be inaccurate. Videos of town council meetings from February and March of 2015, on the town council’s own website, showed the town council and state legislators paving the way for the controversial Invenergy power plant months before the governor officially announced the project. Over time some of the details about how Invenergy approached the town came to light, but the complete story, and who opened what doors to the power plant, has yet to be revealed.

The town council eventually came to a public position regarding the power plant: The town council would put on a public display of strict neutrality, taking no position for or against the power plant, until after all the advisory opinions from various town boards had been completed. This was so as to appear to not influence the outcomes of the various advisory opinions and give the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) a reason to suspect that the opinions might be slanted in some way.

State legislators Cale Keable and Paul Fogarty went a different route. They entered legislation at the state level that if passed, would give voters in Burrillville the ability to approve or reject any tax treaty negotiated between the town council and Invenergy.

The bill passed the House and was due for consideration and a vote in the Senate when the town council passed a resolution in opposition to the Keable Bill at the 11th hour, giving the Senate Judiciary Committee enough of a reason to vote down the bill. The relationship between the town council and residents was now overtly acrimonious. There were tears from Town Councilor Kimberly Brissette Brown and anger and accusations from Town Councilor Donald Fox. Residents spoke of feeling “humiliated” at the State House as the press release announcing the resolution was sprung on them by Senators Frank Lombardi and Steven Archambeault, who treated the residents with risible condescension.

Since that low point, the town council and residents worked to rebuild trust. Residents by this time were long past being held to arbitrary and incorrect readings of the Open Meetings Act. They spoke their minds, expressed their concerns and the town council, to their credit, finally seemed to be listening. They seemed to come together as a town when Governor Gina Raimondo visited to hear resident concerns about the power plant.

After the lengthy process of creating the advisory opinions concluded, the town council passed an extremely robust resolution opposing the power plant and asked other city and town councils in and around Rhode Island to join them in opposition. Many already have and many more are considering joining Burrillville in opposition to the plant. But the Burrillville Town Council’s opposition came with a caveat: They still planned to sign a tax treaty with Invenergy, a tax treaty that the town residents want to hold off on signing.

At issue is the timing. The town council maintains that they have negotiated a solid tax treaty that will protect the town in the event the power plant is built, and guarantee a steady stream of income to the town. The residents want to wait until after the EFSB decides on Invenergy’s application before signing any treaty. Right now, the power plant’s application is suspended, pending Invenergy’s search for a new source of water. Signing the tax treaty, say residents, gives Invenergy extra leverage in negotiating a deal with another municipality, like, let’s say, Woonsocket, to purchase water. The town’s opposition to the power plant must be unified and consistent. Opposing the power plant with a resolution sends one message, signing a tax treaty with Invenergy sends another.

At Wednesday night’s hearing, Attorney Michael McElroy, who negotiated the tax treaty, said that the opposing the power plant and signing a tax treaty were not inconsistent actions and would not be seen that way. “I want to make it… clear that I see no inconsistency between entering into these agreements and dead set opposition to the plant,” said McElroy.

But McElroy is a lawyer. He is not a business man trying to buy water to cool a power plant. What businessman wouldn’t mention the tax treaty as proof that the town council is actually okay with having the power plant sited in their town? The resolution in opposition will be described behind closed doors as merely political theater, something to satisfy the rubes while the real business of government is imposed by the movers and shakers in secret meetings paid for with political contributions.

McElroy did his best to sell the tax treaty to the residents. He spent 45 minutes outlining the deal, expressing the need for a treaty. One reason McElroy gave, that didn’t sit well with residents, was that, “I want to get paid.” The money generated by this tax treaty will give the Town of Burrillville the money it needs to fight the siting of the power plant all the way to the Supreme Court, if need be. The lawyers and experts needed to fight such a case cost money, said McElroy, who included himself in those expenses.

McElroy suggested that if the town council did not pass the tax treaty, Invenergy might pull it off the table. He assured the audience that contrary to what Conservation Law Foundation senior attorney Jerry Elmer says, the plant will be built without a tax treaty in place.

Residents weren’t buying it. Towards the end of what turned out to be a five hours plus meeting, it was obvious that the town’s people were not willing to drink the tax treaty Kool-Aid. Forty people spoke against passing the tax treaty. Two spoke in favor of trusting the town council and McElroy’s advice.

Ultimately the town council recessed without doing anything on the tax treaty. There is a plan to take up the issue again next week.

2016-10-27 Burrillville Town Council 03 — Midnight, during a short break

October 24, 2016October 25, 2016

Burrillville Town Council about to have its Gaspee moment

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

On Wednesday the Burrillville Town Council will be discussing the proposed tax treaty with Invenergy, the company that wants to build a $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant in the town. The timing of this discussion could not be worse. Invenergy just successfully petitioned the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB), the governmental body tasked with with approving or rejecting the plant, for a 90 day extension on their application. Because Invenergy can’t find the water it needs to cool the plant, for the first time the company is on the ropes. Approving a tax treaty at this time will give the company a much needed win, and might turn the tide in their favor.

Invenergy is searching for the water they need. An Access to Public Records Act (APRA) request from RI Future has revealed that Woonsocket Mayor Lisa Badelli-Hunt’s office has had two meetings with Invenergy officials. On September 7 there was a 30 minute meeting and on September 20 there was a 60 minute meeting. Other meetings may have occurred since then. We know from statements made at the October 3 Woonsocket Town Council meeting that these discussions were not about siting the plant in Woonsocket. These discussions, assumed to be ongoing, are about water. Whatever bargaining position Invenergy has in their discussions with Woonsocket, or any other entity contemplating providing the water Invenergy needs, will be enhanced by the existence of an approved tax treaty.

Passing a tax treaty will send mixed signals to the rest of the state. On September 22 the Burrillville Town Council issued a strong statement in opposition to the proposed power plant. They sent out missives to cities and towns through Rhode Island, Connecticut and Massachusetts asking for other town and city councils to pass resolutions in solidarity with Burrillville. So far at least four municipalities have done so, Lincoln, Glocester, North Smithfield and Middletown. How foolish will these councils feel if Burrillville proceeds to negotiate with the company they’ve asked for support in opposing? How eager will other municipalities be to pass their own resolutions going forward?

Jerry Elmer, senior attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) believes that the Town of Burrillville “is under zero obligation to enter into a tax treaty,” adding, “By ‘zero obligation,’ I mean: zero legal obligation, zero ethical obligation, zero political obligation. The Town has tax laws on the books, and those existing tax laws will determine Invenergy’s tax obligation if there is no tax treaty.

“Invenergy can (and likely will) make all kinds of threats about what will or will not happen in the absence of a tax treaty, but the threats are empty,” continues Elmer, “The bottom line is that: (a) The Town can simply choose not to enter into a tax treaty. (b) If the Town chooses not to enter into a tax treaty there is nothing that Invenergy can do. (c) If the Town chooses not to enter into a tax treaty, it is virtually certain that Invenergy will go away.

“But can’t Invenergy sue the Town of Burrillville to try to force the Town to enter a tax treaty?” asks Elmer, before answering, “Technically, the answer is “yes,” Invenergy can sue the town – and, yes, the town would have to spend some money to defend such a lawsuit. But Invenergy could not win such a lawsuit. Remember what law school professors like to say: ‘You can always sue.’ I can sue you for wearing a blue suit (or for your taste in movies). But just because one can bring such a stupid, frivolous lawsuit does not mean that one can win such a stupid lawsuit.

“So, too, with Invenergy and a tax treaty. The Town of Burrillville can decline to enter into a tax treaty with Invenergy, and there is nothing Invenergy can do to force the issue.

“The message to each and every member of the Town Council is simple, so simple it can be put into a single sentence: ‘Vote down any tax treaty.’ Or: ‘Don’t even vote on a tax treaty.’ Or: ‘Don’t vote on a tax treaty, and don’t approve a tax treaty.’ None of those sentences is complicated; none of those involves weird, technical legal mumbo-jumbo. Everyone can understand the point.”

Attorney Alan Shoer, of Adler Pollock & Sheehan, has been representing Invenergy during their application process in front of the EFSB. A look at Shoer’s bio page on his law firm’s website runs down his skills and accomplishments. Shoer is presented as an expert in “all aspects of energy, environmental, and public utility law.” He has “experience in wind, solar, hydro and other renewable energy matters,” and “has represented developers, investors, contractors, utilities, and municipalities in several successful and innovative sustainable energy projects.”

Note what Shoer does not include in his online resumé: Anything at all to do with his strong advocacy for companies that want to expand Rhode Island’s dependence on fracked gas.

Like Governor Gina Raimondo, who never misses an opportunity to publicly champion wind and solar power but downplays her support of fracked gas, and like Senator Sheldon Whitehouse who humbly accepts the laurels heaped upon him for his environmental activism in the Senate but can’t find the time to publicly oppose fracked gas infrastructure in his own state, Alan Shoer seems to want his paid advocacy for fossil fuels companies like Invenergy to go unnoticed.

And this is for a good reason: Twenty years from now, no one will want their name to be attached to the moldering LNG monstrosities, brown fields and contaminated properties left in the wake of the coming fossil fuel collapse. Who wants to tell their children and their grandchildren that they helped destroy the environment when they knew the world was under threat and they knew that they were championing a dying and deadly industry? Carefully shaping their public image today is a way, hopes Raimondo, Whitehouse and Shoer, of shaping the way history will judge them.

But we won’t let the world forget their part in this, will we?

This is why Invenergy would be foolish in suing Burrillville. Not only can they not win, as Jerry Elmer points out above, but in doing so they will be exposing themselves as the villains they are. Burrillville may have to spend money defending themselves against such a lawsuit, but I will bet that most or all of the money Burrillville needs to defend themselves could come from something like an online GoFundMe effort. Fracked gas is enormously unpopular in New England, and becoming more unpopular by the day. Only those who continue to believe the lies of the fossil fuel companies, (and they’ve been lying for decades about climate change, as it turns out) that is, the most gullible or ideologically pathological, believe that fossil fuels are the future.

About 244 years ago, a group of Rhode Islanders in Warwick stood up against British tyranny and torched the Gaspee, starting a series of events that led to the American Revolution. Today, in Burrillville, a group of Rhode Islanders is standing up to the fossil fuel oligarchy and when they win, it will mark a turning point in the climate change battle, and the effects could be as significant as those at Gaspee Point in 1772. Rhode will become, in the words of Timmons Roberts, writing for the Brookings Institute, “a leader of a new energy age for the U.S.,” instead of “a middling actor locked into fossil fuel infrastructure for decades.”

The Burrillville Town Council has an opportunity Wednesday night to save the town, the state, and the world.

Be there.

October 13, 2016October 14, 2016

EFSB sentences Burrillville to 90 days of existential uncertainty

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

20161013_114807 — Pre-hearing lawyer chat

Amid audience shouts of “Shame on you!” and “Merry Christmas, Invenergy!” the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) voted unanimously to grant Invenergy a 90 day suspension on their application to build a $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant in Burrillville, effectively quadrupling Invenergy’s previous 30 day extension.

Once Pascoag voted to terminate their letter of intent with Invenergy to provide water to cool Invenergy’s proposed power plant, and Harrisville also declined to provide water, the company asked for 30 days to find an alternative source. They were granted a 30 day extension 30 days ago and despite negotiating with Woonsocket for the water needed to oil the power plant, nothing concrete was presented at today’s hearing.

Instead we heard Invenergy lawyer Alan Shoer claim that Pascog’s termination of their letter of intent came “very late in the process, after almost a year of working with Invenergy.” This made it impossible for Invenergy to come up with an alternative plan, complained Shoer. Attorney Jerry Elmer with the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) later countered that “Invenergy made a careful, conscious, deliberate decision to file an application with the EFSB that had very tight, strict, statutory deadlines for things happening, before they had a secure water source… That was Invenergy’s sole election.”

In other words, continued Elmer, Invenergy knew that their non-binding letter of intent “may not result in a water source.”

The 90 day suspension comes with the minor caveat that Invenergy provide a status update in 60 days. The update must show concrete progress in securing a water source, though it is unclear what penalty Invenergy may face if they do not deliver an update that is satisfactory to the board. Criteria for the update seemed sketchy.

In 90 days, Invenergy must be able to present a water source to the board, along with a plan to transport the water to the location of the power plant. Burrillville recently provided a list of criteria that board member Janet Coit suggested would need to be satisfied for the suspension to be lifted. The criteria includes the source of the water, the means of transmission of the water, and the disposal of waste water, among other concerns.

In the event that Invenergy is unable to come up with a water supply, Coit suggested that the EFSB might be open to further suspensions at that time, effectively suggesting unlimited time for Invenergy to get their application in order, unless the board decides to dismiss the application per the motions from the Conservation Law Foundation and the Town of Burrillville.

Lawyer Michael McElroy gave a stellar speech to the board in support of dismissing Invenergy’s application, even going so far as to quote Marvel Comics’ Stan Lee. McElroy also directly confronted Chair Margaret Curran and board members Parag Agrawal and Janet Coit about concerns that the EFSB’s process “may be dictated by” Governor Gina Raimondo.

“The Town of Burrillville does not want this plant,” said McElroy, “I think that’s been made clear to this board. This plant would be a polluting monster that violates the town’s comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances and would negatively impact impact the quality of life for all Burrillville residents.

The EFSB, continued McElroy, “has been given extraordinary legal powers to grant permits that would otherwise be granted by my client, the Town of Burrillville. You have in essence become, among other things, the town’s planning board, its zoning board and its building inspector. But with such great power comes great responsibility. Your most important power and responsibility is to fully, fairly and impartially evaluate all of the issues that come before you after hearing from all of the parties on those issues.”

“The residents of the town and my clients have become concerned that throughout this process that the board’s votes on this process may be dictated by the governor, who has repeatedly and publicly expressed her support for this project despite the town’s overwhelming opposition. This board’s ill-advised and illegal previous attempts to silence the town and prevent it from being heard today only reinforces that concern.

McElroy urged the board to dismiss the docket, not suspend it. “Suspending the docket instead of dismissing it would give Invenergy what amounts to a gift of an indefinite suspension,” said McElroy. “The town has been fighting this battle now for almost a year at great monetary and emotional expense.”

McElroy’s fiery comments stand in sharp contrast to those of Jerry Elmer, who added that though the lack of water was a major issue that precipitated the motion to suspend, there was also the issue of a lack of information from Invenergy that caused six of the twelve advisory opinions to the board to be submitted incomplete.

After the board rendered its decision those watching the proceedings left the room singing “We shall overcome.”

Those from Burrillville I talked to were angry and disappointed by the ruling. They feel the process is corrupt and stacked against them. They feel that they are being forced to attend yet more town and city council meetings throughout the state in an effort to garner support and prevent the sale of water to Invenergy. Their holidays will now be filled with research, activism, environmental reports and endless meetings in towns and cities throughout the state and beyond to garner support for their cause and to prevent Invenergy from securing a source of water.

Yet though the process seems corrupt and Invenergy seems intent on grinding away their resolve, the people I talked to were adamant that they would not give up or stop fighting.

October 11, 2016October 11, 2016

Glocester Town Council supports Burrillville in opposition to 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

Though the Middletown Town Council was the first municipality in Rhode Island to take up the issue of whether or not to support the Burrillville Town Council in opposition to Invenergy‘s proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant, on Thursday the Glocester Town Council became the first municipality in the state to pass it. Lead by Council President Walter MO Steere, the resolution was passed unanimously.

Before the resolution could be passed, two town councilors took the opportunity to address some rumors that had been swirling about town. Councilor George Steere said that he was not negotiating to sell water to Invenergy, whose application before the Energy Facilities Siting Board has stalled due o a lack of water to cool its turbines. (Invenergy is currently pursuing a deal with Woonsocket, and perhaps other suppliers.) The rumors, said Steere, originated from an effort begun in 2011 when he was approached to potentially supply water to Pascoag in the aftermath of that town’s water contamination crisis. Crushing the rumor entirely, Steere said, “There will never be one gallon of water from my property [used] to cool a power plant.”

Councilor William Reichart wanted to assure those in attendance that his company, Reichert & Sons Fuel Oil Inc. was in the business of supplying heating oil to homes and small businesses and was in no way able or willing to supply Invenergy with the diesel oil needed to ill its million gallon tanks.

Three residents from Burrillville, Ray Trinque, Paul Roselli and Jeremy Bailey, spoke before the town council, and about a dozen more attended the meeting.

October 4, 2016October 4, 2016

Burrillville residents speak at Woonsocket City Council meeting to prevent water sale to Invenergy

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

During a Woonsocket City Council meeting Monday evening it was revealed that the City of Woonsocket is in some kind of negotiations with Invenergy regarding its proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant. When the question was brought up, City Solicitor Michael Marcello answered only that the city council had been briefed in closed session and would not directly answer the question. As to the question of a power plant being built in the city, Marcello gave a direct answer: No.

City Councillor Daniel Gendron put an item on the city council’s agenda because of the number of calls he had received based on the rumors that such a deal was in the works. He also said that he prepared his question carefully, “so that I could read the question and give the administration [of Mayor Lisa Baldelli-Hunt] the opportunity to answer that question definitively. So what I would like to ask, and I’m asking this of the administration and of my fellow councilors, but specifically the administration. I was hoping the Mayor would be here to respond but, in her absence, somebody in the administration could answer.”

Gendron asked two questions. The first concerned rumors that Invenergy was in negotiations to locate the power plant in Woonsocket, as an alternative to locating the plant in Burrillville, where there has been fierce local and statewide opposition. The second concerned the possible sale of water to Invenergy, for the plant planned for Burrillville.

“My question is a simple question,” said Gendron, “Has the administration had any discussion or communication with Invenergy or anyone else with respect to either siting a power plant in the city or about acquiring water from the city to be used in connection with a power plant?”

Council President Robert Moreau suggested City Solicitor Michael Marcello answer the question. Gendron repeated once more that he was going to address it to the mayor, but would be satisfied with an answer from Marcello.

“Councilor,” answered Marcello, “as you know you are a member of the council and you were briefed by the administration in closed session.” The closed session Marcello refered to took place at 5:30pm, shortly before the 7pm city council meeting. “The reason that we have a closed session,” said Marcello, “is to keep communication closed until such time as the law requires us to disclose it. I will say that emphatically, that there have been no discussions with the administration, that we’re aware of, that I’m aware of, to relocate the power plant within the City of Woonsocket.

“But with regard to your second question,” said Marcello, “you received a briefing in closed session, and that’s where that information must lay right now. In closed session.”

To the residents of Burrillville who had filled the city council chambers, this was confirmation of weeks of rumors.

“At the direction of our council I will not taint the sanctity, if you will, of the executive session meeting and I will not pursue this any further at your direction Mr. Marcello,” said Gendron.

“In summary,” said Council President Moreau, “that was pretty much what you’re going to hear about it tonight from this council because we had an executive session and the City Solicitor explained that we need to abide by that forum.”

“I put this item on the agenda tonight,” said Gendron, “for discussion purposes… that is what precipitated the executive session that took place prior to this meeting.” The item was “an effort to bring out the truth,” said Gendron. “I think that we needed to start this talk, we needed to squelch some of the rumors.” The solicitor denied completely that there was a power plant coming to Woonsocket, said Gendron. Before today, “none of [the city council] knew what was going on, and that was the benefit of the executive session.”

To the dozens of Burrillville residents and anti-fossil fuel activists from around the state, the city council meeting confirmed the existence of the “third option” ominously hinted at by Attorney Richard Sinapi at a meeting of the Harrisville Fire District and Water Board back in August. At that time Harrisville voted not to sell water to Invenergy, and it was known at that time that Pascoag was also going to vote against selling the power plant water.

Rumors had been swirling for weeks that Woonsocket was in negotiations with Invenergy regarding water. RI Future had put in an Access to Public Records Act request with the city on September 23rd regarding this issue. BASE (Burrillville Against Spectra Expansion), took to Facebook to ask people to call the office of Mayor Lisa Baldelli-Hunt “and urge her to stop negotiating a water deal with Invenergy.”

The time frame on any potential deal between Invenergy and Woonsocket is difficult to determine. Yesterday Invenergy was given ten days to prepare for a “show cause” hearing with the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB). EFSB board member Janet Coit, who noted that Invenergy lacks a water plan said that, “from the perspective of the board, we have a big gap.” As part of the show cause hearing, Invenergy will have to submit their new water plan. Though Councillor Roger Jalette, (who is running for Mayor of Woonsocket) said that Invenergy might be making their case before a new city council after the elections in four weeks, Invenergy might not have that much time to wait until after an election.

There was also the hint that this issue may have implications for Woonsocket’s mayoral race between Jalette and Baldelli-Hunt, as Jalette said he is sympathetic to Burrillville’s cause.

During the public commentary period, the Woonsocket City Council was given a taste of what the Burrillville Town Council has been experiencing for nearly a year, that is, speaker after speaker objecting to new fossil fuel infrastructure being built in our state at a time when climate change threatens us all. “We don’t want it in our backyard,” said Ray Trinque of Burrillville, “and we don’t want it in your backyard and we don’t want it in anyone’s backyard…”

Burrillville resident Denise Potvin was born in Woonsocket and has family there still. Potvin said that Alan Shoer of Adler Pollock & Sheehan, one of Invenergy’s attorneys, “conveniently happens to be an attorney for the City of Woonsocket’s water department.” She mentioned that attorney Richard Sinapi is an attorney for Harrisville and large labor union with an interest in seeing the power plant built. “A lot happens behind the curtain,” said Potvin. She ended by suggesting the council educate itself by reading articles like this one on RI Future.

City Council Vice President Albert Brien interrupted public testimony and explained that right now, there was no proposal before the council.

Councillor Roger Jalette is leaving the city council as he runs against Lisa Baldelli-Hunt for Mayor of Woonsocket. “I want you to know that I am very very sensitive to your plight,” said Jalette. Jalette warned that there will be a new city council in four weeks, after the election, as neither he nor Council President Moreau will be on the council.

Burillville resident Jeremy Bailey pointed out that City Solicitor Michael Marcello is also a Ste Representative. Rep Marcello voted against a bill in May that would have allowed Burrillville residents to vote on any proposed tax treaty the town made with Invenergy. Rep Marcello was one of two representatives to attend the Northern Rhode Island Chamber of Commerce’s Eggs & Issues Breakfast Thursday morning where Invenergy‘s director of development John Niland was the guest speaker.

October 3, 2016October 3, 2016

Invenergy power plant application faces suspension

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

The Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) today decided to issue an executive order demanding that Invenergy show cause as to why the docket for their proposed $700M fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant shouldn’t be suspended until such a time as the company can produce a reasonable plan for where the company intends to get the water needed to cool the plant. The show cause hearing has been scheduled for October 13.

The suggestion for the show cause motion came from EFSB board member Janet Coit, who noted the lack of a water plan and said that “from the perspective of the board, we have a big gap.” All meetings past the October 10 date have been canceled, and may or may not be re-scheduled depending on the outcome of the show cause hearing.

The meeting of the EFSB in Warwick also dealt with a short list of procedural motions. The Harrisville Fire District had entered a late motion to intervene, but were denied without prejudice. This motion gave attorney Richard Sinapi the opportunity to rise and speak to the board in favor of Harrisville, only to be told, for the second time, that there was no input allowed from attorneys or the public at this open meeting.

Two motions by Invenergy, to hold confidential some evidence from previous hearings, including the testimony of Ryan Hardy and Invenergy’s responses to the Office of Energy Resources second set of data requests, were approved.

The decision as to whether to change venues for the final hearings on the project was put on hold. Anticipating great public interest in the hearings, and noting that the hearing room at the Public Utilities Commission where the EFSB meets is small, the Town of Burrillville asked for a change to a larger venue.

Instead, the EFSB is exploring options to televise the proceedings on both cable access and the web. The EFSB’s Todd Bianco told me after the meeting that some effort will be made to archive the videos so that people could watch them if their schedules prevent them from watching live.

Board member Parag Agrawal said that “fairness and transparency” were the most important considerations, so broadcasting the hearings was important.

Invenergy has sold energy into a forward capacity market. Not building the plant or completing construction late could cost the company millions. The company initially asked that the application be fast tracked. Today’s decision by the EFSB essentially amounts to another extension, and ultimately could result in a suspension or even dismissal of the docket if no credible water supply can be found.

September 23, 2016September 23, 2016

Burrillville Town Council opposes power plant, but proposed tax treaty undercuts their message

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

Even as the Burrillville Town Council approved a resolution to oppose the siting and construction of Invenergy’s $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant in their town, the next battle, over a proposed tax treaty between the town and the power plant company, was heating up.

The town council approved the resolution 7-0. The resolution also included a provision that Council President John Pacheco III will testify against the power plant before the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) and ask other municipalities to join the town in opposition.

The vote in opposition breaks a long period of “neutrality” on the part of the town council, which the council maintained was necessary so as to not give the appearance of trying to politically affect the outcomes of advisory opinions from the town planning and zoning boards.

“The siting board and Invenergy can certainly never say we did not follow the process,” said Council President Pacheco.

But in the audience, townspeople were holding bright yellow signs that said, NO TAX TREATY, a preview of Monday night’s town council meeting to vote on an agreement with Invenergy to collect $94 million or more from Invenergy if the power plant is ultimately approved. Townspeople say that approving this tax treaty undercuts the council’s statement of opposition.

One by one the town council members explained their opposition to the project. Councillor Kimberly Brissette-Brown, who was absent, had her statement read by the town clerk. There was no public comment allowed, but the bright signs held by audience members spoke volumes.

On a personal note, I was extremely touched by the comments made by Councillor David Place and the reactions of the townspeople to the mention about RI Future and the work we’ve done on Burrillville. Thank you.

To be continued on Monday night. Here’s the full video:

September 22, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suzanne Dumas

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

Lynn Clark

Mary Gauvin

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

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

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

Denise Potvin

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

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

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

Here is the video of all the speakers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Betty Mancucci

John Anthony Scott

Jeremy Bailey

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

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

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

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

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

Karen Palmer

Jason Olkowski

September 17, 2016

Disruption and evolution at energy meeting

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

The Consumer Liaison Group (CLG) Meeting happens four times a year and its a chance for ISO-NE to exchange information with electricity consumers in New England. ISO-NE is the group that regulates our electricity markets and keeps the lights on by coordinating electricity generation and transmission. They run billion dollar markets and interact with companies like Spectra Energy, Invenergy, National Grid and Deepwater Wind. Pretty much every aspect of the process of getting electricity to your television is touched upon by ISO-NE in some way.

The latest meeting of the CLG, in Providence on Thursday, featured a panel discussion with representatives from the four companies mentioned above. The panel was pulled together with the help of Douglas Gablinske, executive director of The Energy Council of Rhode Island (TEC-RI) an advocacy group for energy company concerns. Readers of RI Future may remember that Gablinske was a vocal opponent of Cale Keable’s bill to reform the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB). He was also the only speaker at the RI Public Utilities Commission (RIPUC) to speak in favor of the pipeline tariff.

Gablinske surprised me by asking if I knew about any planned protests or disruptions. I said I didn’t. He asked me specifically about the FANG Collective. I had no idea of what plans they have, if any, I said. Then Gablinske said that he noticed Mary Pendergast on the list of people who had signed up to attend. Pendergast was sitting in the room, and he soon went over to introduce himself to her.

2016-09-15 ISON-NE PVD 001 — As the meeting ended, protesters unfurled a banner

During the course of the presentation there was a disruption. As Invenergy’s John Niland gave his presentation to the room, Mary Pendergast stood and display a small sign that said, “No fracked gas Power plant.” Her protest was silent but it did seem to throw Niland off a bit, as his delivery seemed somewhat distracted.

It was during the third presentation that the disruptions became more pronounced. As Richard Kruse, vice president at Spectra Energy spoke glowingly about the need for bigger and better pipelines in our fracked gas infrastructure future, Kathy Martley of BASE (Burrillville Against Spectra Expansion), Keith Clougherty of the FANG Collective and Sally Mendzela stood up.

“Spectra Energy, Energy for Death,” said Martley as I headed for my camera. “Say no to Invenergy and tell Invenergy to go home,” Martley continued.

As the protest continued, Gablinske took the podium and said, “You have a right to be here but not be disruptive” as Clougherty continued to speak.

Lennette Boiselle, an ally of Geblinske and a lobbyist for the Northern Rhode Island Chamber of Commerce got up and left the room, presumably in search of security. Readers might remember Boiselle as the person arguing against democracy at the public comment hearing concerning Cale Keable’s EFSB bill.

“The political correctness, of not allowing other people to talk is sweeping through this country,” said Geblinske, “It’s an incorrect assumption, this gentlemen has the right to speak…”

“We’ve been listening to you our whole lives, Pal,” interrupted Sally Mendzela.

Gablinske ultimately offered to set up a forum where “both sides” could be heard but it is unknown if this will actually happen. The protesters took their seats, no one was ejected from the forum, and Kruse finished his talk.

Amazingly, though, that wasn’t the end. During a brief question and answer period at the end of the presentations, Gablinske called on Clougherty to ask a question!

“I would ask for a question, not a speech or a statement,” said Gablinske, when he realized who he had called upon.

Clougherty then asked Niland, Kruse and Bill Malee, a National Grid VP, “Do your companies have any money set aside for restitution for the millions of people who are going to be displaced and killed by the infrastructure projects you all are proposing?”

There is no good answer representatives from these companies can give, yet Niland attempted one. As expected, it was not good.

I found the most interesting talk of the day came from Mary Louise “Weezie” Nuara, External Affairs Representative for ISO-NE.

“The region’s competitive wholesale electricity markets are really designed to maintain reliability through the selection of the most economically efficient set of resources,” said Nuara, but the states “have environmental and renewable energy goals that are beyond the objectives of the wholesale electricity markets.”

What’s happening is that states are setting goals to increase renewables and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (like the goals set out in ResilientRI, but all the New England states have some version of this idea.) ISO-NE is designed to deliver energy as reliably and cheaply as possible. As a market, it cannot deliver renewables or reduce emissions unless those options are cheaper and cleaner. In August, NEPOOL (which represents the interest of the New England states when dealing with ISO-NE) began looking into how to adjust wholesale electricity markets to accommodate the goals of the states. It is NEPOOL’s goal to develop a “framework document” by December 2 to provide guidance to ISO-NE regarding potential changes. (A kind of advisory opinion, if you will.)

What makes this interesting, to my mind, is that if ISO-NE starts taking the climate change concerns of the states into account, plants like the one Invenergy is planning for Burrillville will have a harder time selling their energy into the markets.

ISO-NE is a little over a decade old, but already it’s finding that its systems are in need of being updated over concerns of climate change. By contrast, the EFSB here in Rhode Island was established thirty years ago, in 1986. The RI General Assembly has shown little inclination towards revising the EFSB’s mandate in lieu of climate change.

Below please find all the video from the CLg meeting except for the closing comments.

Rebecca Tepper, chair of the CLG Coordinating Committee and chief of the Energy & Telecommunications Division of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office introduced keynote speaker Rhode Island General Treasurer Seth Magaziner.

Douglas Gablinske, executive director, The Energy Council of Rhode Island

Jeffrey Grybowski, chief executive officer, Deepwater Wind

John Niland, director of business development, Invenergy

Richard Kruse, vice president and regulatory & FERC compliance officer for Spectra Energy

Bill Malee, vice president of regulatory affairs, for National Grid

ISO-NE Q&A

September 13, 2016September 13, 2016

Burrillville files motion to dismiss Invenergy application

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

Because Invenergy “has either refused or is unable to provide timely information regarding its proposed water supply… its Application should… be dismissed” writes Attorney Michael McElroy, representing the Town of Burrillville, in a motion filed with the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) today.

Invenergy is proposing to build a $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant in Burrillville, a project that has the support of both Governor Gina Raimondo and the Providence Journal. The residents of Burrillville and every environmental group in Rhode Island oppose the plan.

Invenergy’s original plan was to pump water from a well contaminated with MTBE, but on Aug 19 the Pascoag Utility District voted unanimously to deny Invenergy access to that water. Under EFSB rules and the Act that established the EFSB, “Applications must include information regarding all required support facilities, including water resources.” Without such information, writes McElroy, “The Application cannot be evaluated in a meaningful way.”

McElroy’s motion to dismiss also notes that the Town of Burrillville, the Burrillville Planning Board and the Burrillville Zoning Board of Review “have formally requested information regarding Invenergy’s water source on multiple occasions” and that “Invenergy repeatedly promised to provide such information, but to date has failed to do so.”

“In fact,” writes McElroy, “in a Motion for Extension filed by Invenergy last Friday, Invenergy stated that its ‘expects’ to have a water source ‘within the coming weeks.’ This is uselessly vague.

Jerry Elmer, Senior Attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), “supports the Town of Burrillville’s Motion to Dismiss the Invenergy case, which was filed today. In fact, CLF has been preparing its own Motion to Dismiss on the same grounds as the Town’s Motion: The Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) process cannot go forward without the required Advisory Opinions from the Town; and the Town cannot prepare the required Advisory Opinions because Invenergy has failed to provide legally required information.

“Invenergy’s application to build a new fossil fuel power plant in Burrillville is incomplete, and the EFSB must dismiss the application. CLF argued its first Motion to Dismiss last January because Invenergy’s application was incomplete then; and CLF will continue to argue the same point now: Invenergy’s application remains incomplete. It is past time for the EFSB to dismiss this case.”

September 9, 2016

Invenergy requests extension on power plant hearings

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

Invenergy‘s attorneys Alan Shoer, Richard Beretta Jr and Nicole Verdi today filed a motion with the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) for a thirty day extension because they need the time to nail down an alternative water source for their proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant.

“The grounds for this request is that Invenergy expects to have an alternative water supply plan for the Project filed with the Board and available for review within the coming weeks,” reads the motion, “Therefore, in order to provide all parties with enough time to review and comment on Invenergy’s alternative water supply plans, Invenergy requests that the EFSB extend the remaining Procedural Schedule deadline thirty (30) days.”

In their original application Invenergy requested “an expedited review of this application and a Final Decision on its approval by no later than September 15, 2016,” adding, “This Facility will be bid into the ISO-NE’s Forward Capacity Auction number 10 (“FCA 10”) in February 2016, and if selected, commercial operation of the Facility will be required by June 1, 2019, with significant financial penalties due if this capacity obligation is not met.”

August 31, 2016

Burrillville Zoning Board votes ‘No’ on Invenergy

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

Ray Cloutier, chair of the Burrillville Zoning Board, ripped Invenergy‘s plans for a $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant to shreds Tuesday evening as he lead the board in a unanimous decision to reject the company’s application in their advisory opinion to the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB). Cloutier called Invenergy’s plans to use “up to a million gallons of water” per day “totally irresponsible” saying that future growth and development in the town would be curtailed. “That’s totally irresponsible,” he said.

The Burrillville Zoning Board has been tasked by the EFSB to deliver an advisory opinion. The Zoning Board based much of their decision on the work done by the Burrillville Planning Board. The EFSB can give the advisory opinion as much or as little weight as they choose. They can adopt the opinion in whole or in part, modify the opinion or simply ignore it.

But the opinion, based on strong research and hours upon hours of expert and community testimony, should not be considered lightly. Cloutier maintained that Invenergy has avoided providing the board with requested answers.

“Due to… a lack of concrete information, we, the board, have asked in several different ways, several different times, for concrete information from this company, and they’ve either ignored our questions, or evaded them, or answered in a very vague manner,” said Cloutier, “We’ve gotten no definite answers, as far as I can tell, on anything.

“We have no plans. Nothing that we can read.”

One big stumbling block is the water. Cloutier said:

The big question, and we’ve asked this over and over again, available water supply. There is no water supply. As a matter of fact, they’ve been denied any water from anybody in this town. And if they were to attempt to drill a well, and draw from the ground water, it would seriously deplete the aquifer in the whole town.

“It would stop any further development. It would cripple the town from developing anything further after this. There’s no guarantee that there’s enough water for [Invenergy]. I’ve heard that there’s up to a million gallons of water per day demand at times for this plant. That’s totally irresponsible.

“This town would be facing a public water moratorium on future village growth if this is approved. It’s unbelievable that we’d consider that.”

The meeting started off contentiously. Burrillville residents, worried about the outcome of the opinion, quickly hijacked the meeting, demanding the opportunity to speak publicly. Cloutier appeared frustrated at times and admonished the crowd to be respectful. But in the end Cloutier thanked residents for their patience during the difficult process.

Invenergy’s lawyer Elizabeth Noonan actually lost her cool as members of the audience interrupted her, saying, “People, really, I’m trying to address the board member, could you give me a- little quiet?” One woman in the audience shouted, “No!” Noonan countered, “I don’t speak when you speak.” She then gave up trying to speak and put down her microphone.

With the decision of the Burrillville Zoning Board made, this part of the EFSB process has come to a close. The EFSB is still waiting on final advisory opinions from the Department of Health and the Department of Environmental Management.

Here’s Stephanie Sloman‘s testimony on low octave noise, which Cloutier found very compelling:

Here’s the full meeting:

August 30, 2016August 30, 2016

EFSB established as ‘one-stop shopping’ for power companies

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

On the day the Rhode Island Senate Finance committee passed the legislation that would establish the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB), Robert L Bendick Jr, the director of the RI Department of Environmental Management (DEM) asked, “I just wonder what’s going on here. What’s the driving force behind this?” [Providence Journal, April 11, 1986; pg A-15]

The question Bendick asked on April 9, 1986 strongly resonates today. Jerry Elmer, of the Conservation Law Foundation, said the EFSB “was designed to take the power to stop a proposal like Invenergy’s out of the hands of the local people… and put it into the hands of the EFSB.”

Governor Gina Raimondo refers to EFSB decision making as “the process” and asks us all to trust in it, but how are we to trust if we can’t tell if the intent of the process is to serve Rhode Islanders or to serve the energy industry?

What is going on here? Here’s some historical context.

Back in 1986, Ward Pimley, writing for the ProJo, wrote, “Sen. Victoria Lederberg, D-Providence, the sponsor, said the [EFSB] bill streamlines the approval process required for obtaining licenses to build major energy facilities for generation of electricity, treatment of liquefied natural gas, oil refineries and the like…”

Victoria Lederberg was an impressive woman and public servant. A judge, she “served as state representative from 1975-1983 ,representing the East Side of Providence, and state senator from 1985-1991… Lederberg was a trailblazer, becoming the first woman of Italian heritage to serve in the Rhode Island legislature.”

Pimley continues, “In previous testimony, Lederberg called the siting board concept ‘one-stop shopping,’ where interested developers could learn what they must do to obtain licenses and fulfill obligations to build. She said it removes jurisdictional overlapping among regulatory agencies.

“She said the bill recognizes the state’s need for ‘reasonably priced, reliable sources of energy’ and balances that with issues affecting public health and environmental impact.”

Nine years earlier, in his January 1977 inaugural address, Governor J Joseph Garahy outlined his ideas for the state’s energy objectives. Siting of energy projects heretofore had been haphazard, and based solely on the whims of industry. Garahy had a vision “to site energy facilities in light of state plans, rather than private industry decisions.” He was governor of a Rhode Island that was suffering from environmental mismanagement, and the new governor was hoping for a different approach. The EFSB, at its best, would be a realization of Garahy’s vision, but in an effort to please industry rather than regulate it, Garahy’s vision may have been compromised.

Public Utilities Commission] Chairman Edward F Burke, Pimley wrote, “testified earlier that the legislation is important because there are eight or nine potential applications for energy-generating facilities that could be built in some other state unless the licensing procedure were streamlined.

“He cited a $300-million facility proposed for Burrillville that should provide electricity by 1989 on property owned by Narragansett Electric as an example of the type of facility that can be built.”

This $300-million facility is the Ocean State Power plant, which currently uses 4 million gallons of water a day to cool its turbines.

Recognizing that the EFSB would allow industry to override the environmental concerns of the state, Sen. William C. O’Neill, today more famous as a South County bike path than a Democratic senator from Narragansett, objected. Here’s Pimley’s play-by-play of what he called a ‘hot debate’:

“You feel DEM is an obstacle,” O’Neill said. “You removed that obstacle, and you know it.”

“You’re absolutely incorrect,” Lederberg shot back.

“I’m concerned that you’re allowing other agencies to override DEM,” O’Neill said.

“I totally disagree,” Lederberg said. “This shares decision-making. DEM has an important role. That’s why we’ve made them one of the board members. It does not weaken the permit-granting power by DEM.”

Lederberg said DEM does not have veto authority to stop any project it wants, but it still is involved in the planning process.

Then Sen. David R. Carlin Jr, D-Newport, said the siting board can overrule decisions of other agencies.

“It seems it’s clearly overriding DEM,” he said.

O’Neill, seeing DEM Director Robert L Bendick Jr watching the proceedings, said he would vote for the bill if Bendick agreed that DEM’s interests would not be jeopardized by it, but committee chairman Donald R. Hickey, D-Providence, called for a vote.

“The bill was approved, 8 to 4.”

This is what prompted Bendick to ask, “What’s going on here?” adding, “If what they’re doing is overriding the department’s authority, I’m opposed to it.”

Months earlier, in an editorial, the ProJo had endorsed Lederberg’s proposal writing, “As a House member in 1979, Mrs. Lederberg sponsored a similar bill that died in the Senate. Former Gov. J. Joseph Garrahy, who supported the bill, issued an executive order embodying many of its details, but that wasn’t an adequate substitute for statutory enactment…

“Mrs. Lederberg says energy installations must be reviewed in terms of regional need and cost-effectiveness, not on the basis that Rhode Island must be totally self-sufficient in energy.” [Providence Journal February 17, 1986; page A-10] Note that Lederberg is not quoted as mentioning, and that the ProJo editorial seems uninterested in, environmental issues.

Pimley noted that the bill, as originally introduced by Lederberg, allowed the General Assembly to override an EFSB decision, but that provision was removed before passage because “it was no longer needed.”

Pimley also noted that “support for the legislation came from the Governor’s Office of Energy Assistance, the PUC and Narragansett Electric Co.”

Narragansett Electric is today a wholly owned sub-entity of National Grid.

Of special concern to all involved with the establishment of the EFSB was a proposal “to build twin natural-gas-fired plants in Burrillville. According to a plan disclosed Tuesday, the plants would be supplied by a new, 25-mile gas pipeline that would run from Sutton, Mass., to the Burrillville site and on to Cranston.” [Providence Journal, February 13, 1986; page A-14]

The very first application the EFSB took up was the Ocean State Power Plant in Burrillville.

August 24, 2016August 26, 2016

‘Essentially our advisory opinion means nothing’

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 Planning Board meeting, held on Monday evening, was a confusing muddle that revealed the structural weaknesses of the “process” that Governor Gina Raimondo implored the people of Burrillville to trust in.

The board was meeting to vote to approve the final version of its required advisory opinion to the EFSB (Energy Facilities Siting Board) concerning Invenergy’s $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant, a scheme that is wildly unpopular with Burrillville residents.

The powerlessness of a small, town appointed board in the face of a multi-billion dollar company with state government support was aptly demonstrated when board chair Jeffrey Partington lamented that “one of the weaknesses of this entire [process] is that we haven’t seen plans” from Invenergy.

The “process” is designed so that a town planning board has to decide to endorse or oppose a plan that will have enormous impact on the town, without seeing the actual plans.

This is by intent.

Conservation Law Foundation attorney Jerry Elmer has pointed out that the process “was designed to take the power to stop a proposal like Invenergy’s out of the hands of the local people… and put it into the hands of the EFSB.”

Hours of meetings and endless discussions have consumed the board’s time and the energy and efforts of local townsfolk. Yet the board’s own attorney, Michael McElroy, succinctly summed it up when he said, “Essentially our advisory opinion means nothing. It’s simply an advisory opinion. The EFSB can take it, they can take it in part, or they can reject it.”

At this meeting we learned that though Invenergy is confident that they can design the power plant to meet the noise ordinances set by the town, they have no intention of posting a bond to insure that this goal is met. An expert hired by the town has said that though he has never seen a power plant meet noise requirements so low and that such a thing has never been done, he believes it might be possible.

“It may be difficult and it may be expensive,” noise expert David Hessler cautioned, adding, “I think it can be done.”

Later in the same meeting Hessler admitted that he had “never seen a power plant meet the noise levels” but reiterated that he thinks this plant can be designed to do so.

Maybe this is why Invenergy won’t post a bond: What bonding company wants to insure a project that may well prove to be impossible? Not agreeing to post a bond may also be a legal strategy. The EFSB, when they decide on the final terms of the deal, might include a bonding that Invenergy agreed to, but more likely the EFSB will simply give Invenergy a waiver on the noise level, allowing the company to disregard Burrillville’s ordinance, without bringing up the bonding issue at all.

Why post a bond to meet a requirement you intend to have waived?

So all the sturm und drang over low octave vs. decibel limits on noise may well be for naught. “Essentially our advisory opinion means nothing,” said McElroy.

Here in Rhode Island we call that, “the process.”

Here’s the full video of the Burrillville Planning Board meeting.

August 18, 2016August 26, 2016

CLF to PUC: Burrillville plant not needed

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

The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) today presented its arguments against Invenergy’s proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant in a brief filed with the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The PUC is charged with rendering an advisory opinion to the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) the board that will have the final say in whether the proposed plant gets built. In putting together their advisory opinion, the PUC will be considering briefs from the CLF, Invenergy, the Town of Burrillville and the Division of Public Utilities and Carriers (Division).

The PUC’s mandate is to “conduct an investigation … and render an advisory opinion” as to the “need for the proposed facility,” says CLF attorneys Max Greene and Jerry Elmer in their brief, quoting Rhode Island General Laws § 42-98-9(d). The CLF “therefore presented unrefuted evidence that shows the plant is not needed, in the form of testimony from expert witness Robert Fagan.”

Though Invenergy’s expert witnesses “profess to disagree” with Fagan, they argue that the plant will provide a “social surplus” of energy and not that the plant is actually needed, says the CLF in their brief. In the recent ISO-NE forward capacity auction, Invenergy only sold half its capacity. If you subtract out Invenergy’s contribution to the energy markets the region still has nearly 1,000 megawatts of excess capacity, says the CLF.

Further, Invenergy and the Division presented no evidence at the hearings that the plant is needed. Instead, Invenergy made the claim that if the power plant sold energy in an ISO-NE forward capacity auction, this proves the plant must be needed. The CLF argues that this is incorrect, maintaining that “… a CSO is not a showing of need but the result of a complex market mechanism that takes into account other factors such as cost.”

But even if we accept the “CSO equals need” argument, says the CLF, neither Invenergy nor the Division “has presented evidence to show that the proposed Invenergy plant is needed. This is because Invenergy has proposed a two-turbine, 1,000 MW plant but has not obtained a CSO for a two-turbine, 1,000 MW plant.” What Invenergy is defending is a one turbine plant, since that’s what sold at auction.

The PUC must consider the need of the power plant as proposed. What Invenergy has proposed is a two-turbine, 1,000 MW plant. As the CLF brief makes clear, “Invenergy has not obtained a CSO for a two-turbine, 1,000 MW plant,” it has, at best, demonstrated the need for a “485 MW project.”

“Not once does the EFSB Order describe the proposed Invenergy plant under consideration as a single-turbine, 485 MW generator. Instead, the Order says the proposed plant ‘will have a nominal power output at base load of approximately 850-1,000 megawatts” and that the plant will consist of two units. So defined, ‘the proposed facility’ and ‘the Project’ do not have a CSO.”

The PUC’s advisory opinion is due at the EFSB before final hearings start in September. The briefs from all intervenors are due at 4pm today (Thursday).

August 8, 2016August 26, 2016

Invenergy power plant facing water problems

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

Invenergy’s proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant in Burrillville is running into some water problems. The Pascoag Utility District, at a special meeting called by board chair Al Palmisciano for August 19, will decide for or against allowing Invenergy to access well 3A, which is closed by court order due to MTBE contamination.

A decision in Invenergy’s favor is by no means certain. In fact, Invenergy already seems to be searching for other options. On August 9 the Harrisville Fire District is taking up Invenergy’s, “inquiry as to whether and under what conditions Harrisville would be willing to consider developing and constructing a well and distribution means to supply water to the power plant at Invenergy’s expense.” Invenergy is also asking Harrisville to “authorize such additional pump and water testing and legal research as is necessary to determine the yield, viability and estimated cost of developing a well on the Victory Highway site and constructing an appropriate means of distribution at Invenergy’s expense.”

The Harrisville meeting is taking place at a time that overlaps with the RI Department of Health (RIDOH)’s public commentary hearing at the Burrillville High School, part of the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB)’s process of determining the fate of the power plant. This will have the effect of dividing the potential audience, but over the last few weeks water has become a very big issue in northern Rhode Island because the area is experiencing a severe drought, with rainfall five inches below average.

Aquifers and wells are feeling the effect of the lack of rainfall. Invenergy plans to use an average of 100,000 gallons of water a day to cool their plant, and almost a million gallons a day when burning oil. This is in addition to the 4 million gallons of water used to cool Burillville’s existing power plant, Ocean State Power. This strain on the area’s water supply may be lead to even more severe water shortages in the area. At the very least, it will forestall the possibility of future growth in the area.

Even if both Harrisville and Pascoag deny Invenergy their water, it doesn’t necessarily put an end to the company’s plans. Water could be imported from over state lines, and of course there is always the option used by Ocean State Power. According to a video by Paul Roselli of the Burrillville Land Trust and Burrillville resident Norman Derjarlais, the company seems to be trucking in the water from Western Sand & Gravel, a nearby superfund site, in leaking trucks. From 1975-1979 about 12 acres of this area was used for the disposal of liquid waste, including chemicals and septic waste.

You can watch the video below.

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

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.

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