Posted on

Killingly power plant battle impacts Rhode Island


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

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

2016-10-10 Killingly 023As large as Invenergy‘s $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant would be if it were to be actually built in the pristine wilderness of Burrillville, the project is but a small part of a colossal, three-state fracked gas infrastructure project that has been in development for years in the northwest corner of the Rhode Island and beyond. Eight power plants currently litter a 31 mile expanse of pipeline, from Killingly, Connecticut, through Rhode Island, to Medway, Massachusetts. If built, Burrillville would be power plant number nine and Killingly is the proposed site of power plant number ten.

Smaller than the power plant proposed for neighboring Burrillville, the “Killingly Energy Center” is slated to produce 550 MW of unneeded energy. It will produced nearly 2 million tons of emissions per year, adding to the emissions of the Lake Road Generating Facility, an 840 MW power plant already located in Killingly. Emissions, of course, know no political boundaries, so large parts of Rhode Island will be subjected to this increase in pollutants.

2016-10-10 Killingly 017The Killingly power plant is to be built in a residential neighborhood within a mile of 460 Killingly housing units. At least five schools and day cares, over 5,000 students, are within three miles of the proposed plant. Wyndham County, where Killingly is located, has asthma rates 18 percent higher than the rest of Connecticut.

To power the plant, a pipeline connection to the main AIM pipeline will be built, crossing the Quinebaug River, Wyndham Land Trust, the Airline Trail, Pomfret Audubon Society and Bafflin Sanctuary. Each area a precious resource.

Like Burrillville, the proposed power plant needs water. There is a concern that the aquifers will be strained and that residents will suffer a lack of water given that the power plant needs 90,000 gallons a day when burning fracked gas and as much as 400,000 gallons a day when burning diesel oil. Also, like Burrillville, there are safety and and noise issues to consider when a plant like this is built in a residential area.

2016-10-10 Killingly 022The Town of Killingly is categorized as a distressed community. Like other areas where these types of facilities are targeted, there are environmental justice issues to be considered. Very often the facilities are like these are aimed at low income communities that lack the financial means to either fight the power plant or resist the financial carrots dangled by the company building the plant.

NTE Energy, the prospective builder, has never completed a power plant. Formed in 2009 as a private equity funded company, there is a worry that the company will build the plant and sell it off for a quick profit. Currently the company has six power plants in development, two of which are under construction. The company has no experience in operating or maintaining a power plant.

Also, like in Rhode Island, the residents most impacted by the siting of a power plant in their community have no say in whether or not the plant will be built. The Connecticut Siting Council, the equivalent of Rhode Island’s Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) makes the final decision regarding the power plant in Killingly. The Siting Council has already determined that Connecticut has an excess of electricity generation into 2020, yet is still considering the power plant in Killingly.

Opposition to the power plant has begun in Killingly. The group is called Not Another Power Plant, and I found that they were very knowledgeable about the situation in Burrillville. I went there Monday afternoon to talk with residents who were holding signs and a press conference to get the word out. Below I speak to Connecticut State Senator Mae Flexer and Connecticut State Representative Danny Rovero about their opposition.

On Thursday October 20th beginning at 3:30 pm there will be a public field review of the proposed NTE/KEC site on Lake Road, Dayville. This will be an opportunity to see the area where NTE hopes to build the power plant. Afterwards there will be a Public Hearing with the Connecticut Siting Council at 6:30 pm at the Killingly High School Auditorium. Public comment will be heard at this meeting.

2016-10-10 Killingly 025

2016-10-10 Killingly 024

2016-10-10 Killingly 021

2016-10-10 Killingly 020

2016-10-10 Killingly 019

2016-10-10 Killingly 018

2016-10-10 Killingly 016

2016-10-10 Killingly 015

2016-10-10 Killingly 014

2016-10-10 Killingly 013

2016-10-10 Killingly 012

2016-10-10 Killingly 011

2016-10-10 Killingly 010

2016-10-10 Killingly 009

2016-10-10 Killingly 008

2016-10-10 Killingly 007

2016-10-10 Killingly 006

2016-10-10 Killingly 005

2016-10-10 Killingly 004

2016-10-10 Killingly 003

2016-10-10 Killingly 002

2016-10-10 Killingly 001

2016-10-10 Killingly 000

Posted on

CLF files motion to dismiss in power plant case


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

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

2016-07-19 Burrillville MTBE Site Visit 025The Conservation Law Foundation‘s (CLF) senior attorney Jerry Elmer filed a Motion to Dismiss today with the Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) in the case of Invenergy’s $700 fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant planned for Burrillville. CLF’s motion is broader than the one filed by the Town of Burrillville, which concentrated on the fact that Invenergy to date has supplied no information on where the water to cool the power plant will come from, making it impossible to assess the project.

In addition to the water issue, CLF’s motion is based on the lack of advisory opinions from multiple agencies, due to Invenergy’s lack of providing needed information. This is CLF’s second motion to dismiss. As this new Motion to Dismiss says in its conclusion, “Back in January, CLF argued that this docket should be closed due to inadequate information from Invenergy.

“Invenergy’s Application lacked enough details for the parties, including CLF, to assess and respond to its proposal. The EFSB voted to let the process take its course. The Board noted that ‘further information’ might at some point be ‘necessary to conduct a thorough review and make an informed decision…’ It added that discovery would be available as part of the process.

“In the intervening eight months, twelve agencies and subdivisions have attempted to conduct the thorough reviews and make the informed decisions demanded of them by the Energy Facility Siting Act and the Board. Discovery has occurred. And Invenergy has failed to provide enough information for the agencies and subdivisions to issue fully informed advisory opinions. The process has taken its course, statutory deadlines have passed, and there still is not enough information for the Board to do its job. Invenergy’s failure to provide adequate information violated the Energy Facility Siting Act, it precluded the agencies and subdivisions from doing their jobs, and it precludes the EFSB from fulfilling its statutory mandates, Enough is enough: Invenergy’s application must be dismissed.”

UPDATE: See Jerry Elmer’s blog post about the motion here.

Posted on

Whitehouse not the climate champion Burrillville needs


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

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
2016-02-01 FANG Whitehouse PVD City Hall 09
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse

United States Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has a national, and even international, reputation as a climate champion, noted Rhode Island Senate President M Teresa Paiva-Weed as she introduced him to to the nearly 150 people gathered in Newport for a community dinner and Q&A. Paiva-Weed talked up Whitehouse’s concern for his constituents, saying, “Someone like Sheldon makes it a point to be home and to have a focus on the issues at home.”

But to the residents of Burrillville who drove for over an hour through rush hour traffic to attend the dinner, Whitehouse hardly seems focused on “the issues at home” and in fact, his own words belie that. His international reputation as an environmental champion is of small comfort to the townspeople fighting Invenergy’s $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant.

Whitehouse touted his environmental concerns in his opening remarks, saying, “The good news is that… the [climate] denial operation really is collapsing. You can feel it visibly. We’re at the stage where the CEO of Exxon has had to admit, ‘Okay, climate change is real, and we’re doing it and we want to get something done.’”

Climate change, says Whitehouse, “is going to hit home for Rhode Island in a really big way and I want to make sure that I’ve done everything that I possibly can to make sure that we are as prepared for it as we can be in the Ocean State.”

Richard Dionne, vice president of the Burrillville Conservation Commission was called on by Whitehouse to ask the first question.

“When discussing the most influential senators from Rhode Island on environmental quality issues, your name is often brought up in the same sentence as our former Senator John H Chafee,” said Dione, “Not bad company to be in if I do say so myself.”

“Really good company,” agreed Whitehouse.

Dione continued, “However, our Senator Chafee would be rolling over in his grave if he knew that a 900 megawatt fracked gas power plant being proposed by Governor Raimondo was to be sited smack dab in the middle of the John H Chafee Heritage Corridor in the northwest corner of Rhode Island, on the shared border with neighboring states Connecticut and Massachusetts.

“This area has been recently designated as part of the National Park Service. The approximately 13,000 acres of protected forests, recreational areas, wetlands and conservation areas is absolutely the most inappropriate area for this type of project.

“Every environmental organization in the state of Rhode Island has come out against the project,” continued Dione, “including the Environmental Council of Rhode Island, the Audubon Society, the Nature Conservancy, Blackstone Heritage Corridor, the list goes on and on, I have a list right here…”

“I know the list,” said Whitehouse.

“At many of the public hearings I attend, invariably the question gets posed to me, ‘Where is our environmental Senator on this issue and what is he doing for his constituents in Burrillville?’ A town which, by the way, has supported your election in 2006 and 2012.

“So my question is Senator Whitehouse,” said Dione, winding up, “What answer can I bring back to the people of Burrillville, and can you commit this evening to opposing this power plant?”

“The short answer is,” said Whitehouse after a short pause, “There is a process…”

“Here we go,” said a woman at my table with open disdain.

If there was a wrong answer to give, this was it. Everyone who attended Governor Gina Raimondo’s appearance at the Burrillville High School has heard this answer before. No one takes “trust the process” seriously. It’s political dodge ball.

Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) attorney Jerry Elmer has spoken eloquently about the process. “Remember that the reason – the raison d’etre – that the General Assembly created the EFSB (Energy Facility Siting Board) was precisely to take these energy siting decisions away from the Town Councils and town planning boards,” wrote Elmer.

RI Senator Victoria Lederberg, who got the EFSB legislation through the General Assembly 30 years ago, called the siting board concept “one-stop shopping” for power plant developers. Climate change, environmental concerns and the health and safety of residents didn’t seem to be high on the General Assembly’s priorities when the EFSB was formed.

The process renders the opinion of ordinary townsfolk essentially meaningless, said Burrillville Planning Board attorney Michael McElroy. “The EFSB can take [our opinion], they can take it in part, or they can reject it.”

“There is a process,” said Whitehouse, “taking place for [the power plant] through the state Energy Facility Siting Board. They take sworn testimony, as I think you know. There are a whole bunch of local environmental groups that are intervened into that proceeding. The Conservation Law Foundation has come down from Boston to intervene in that proceeding. They have witnesses.”

Senator Whitehouse is incorrect here. The only environmental group certified as an intervenor in the EFSB proceedings is the CLF. The Burrillville Land Trust, Fighting Against Natural Gas (FANG), Burrillville Against Spectra Expansion (BASE) and Fossil Free Rhode Island were denied intervenor status, as it was felt that their interests would be seen to by the CLF.

“It’s essentially an administrative trial that is taking place,” continued Whitehouse, “I have confidence in that process. I have confidence in Janet Coit at DEM (Department of Environmental Management) who by virtue of being the DEM director is on the Energy Facility Siting Board. I have confidence in Meg Curran, chairman of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) who by virtue of being chairman chairs that Siting Board, and there’s going to be somebody from the Department of Administration…”

Associate Director of the Division of Planning, Parag Agrawal, is the third member of the EFSB.

“It’s a process I’ve worked with from my earliest days,” said Whitehouse, “when I first came as a young lawyer to Rhode Island I worked in the Attorney General’s office and I practiced representing the people before the Public Utilities Commission.

“So I have confidence in the process.

“Congratulations,” added Whithouse, “The opposition to Invenergy, I think, has won every round. Burrillville said ’No’ on planning, Burrillville said ‘No’ on zoning, the water board said ‘No’ on water, so I think you’re, yeah, it’s a process and I know it would be easier to just yell about it but it’s a process that I think is honorable and will come to the right result.

“So I want to focus my efforts on where it will make the biggest difference. I know we’ve had some conversation, repeatedly, but I still am of the view that, with the force and strength that I have available to me, I want to apply every bit of that force and strength to the battle in Washington, which if we win it, will be immensely significant, not just to Burrillville but to all of Rhode Island and to the country and the world.

“So, sorry that I don’t have more to give than that, but I do think that I give pretty well at the office with what I do on this issue. Thank you for bringing it up though, I appreciate it.”

Burrillville resident Lynn Clark was called on to ask the next question. This seemed like a coincidence, but in fact, half the questions asked concerned the power plant in Burrillville, in one way or another.

Clark rose and with only the slightest hint of nervousness in her voice, said, “My name is Lynn and I come from the northwest corner of the state of Rhode Island. It has been my home all my life. I applaud you and I love the work you’re doing on the environmental front.

“In Burrillville, our little town has come together and we have come out strong against this giant plan. We have a lot of environmental groups [on our side], 23 currently, and we are working hard.

“I wish I could say that I am as confident in this process as you are, sir. It has been a scary process. We have been consumed by this process. I have been at every meeting, for hours, two or three meetings per week. Sir, this is a scary, scary process.

“We need a champion in Burrillville and we are asking you to please come see us. Please, come talk to us. If this Invenergy [power plant] gets built, the detriments to our little state will be just horrifying.”

Clark’s appeal to Whitehouse was raw and emotional. It’s the kind of speech people give in movies to roust tired champions into battle one final time.

But this wasn’t a movie and Whitehouse wasn’t willing to be the hero.

“I hear you,” said Whitehouse, once again echoing words Governor Raimondo used in Burrillville when she visited, “I can’t add much to what I’ve said to Richard. Thank you for taking the trouble to come down and share your passion.

Eagle Scout James Lawless with Whitehouse
Eagle Scout James Lawless with Whitehouse

“It is the National Heritage Corridor,” said Clark, not giving up, “We also have a boy scout camp up there, camp grounds… Have you been up to Burrillville?”

“Oh yeah,” said Whitehouse.

“Okay,” said Clark, “I hope you come visit us soon, sir. Thank you.”

Other questions came and went. Whitehouse was asked about the Supreme Court vacancy, grid security and the opioid epidemic. When Newport resident Claudia Gorman asked Whitehouse  about the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), he admitted that on the federal level, at least, he isn’t as certain about the integrity of the process.

“There have been several problems, at the federal level, with the approvals,” said Whitehouse, “They haven’t baked into their decision making what is called the social cost of carbon.” Whitehouse added that we don’t take seriously the problem of methane gas leaks, and that he held the first hearings on the issue of gas leaks and that we still don’t know the full extent of that particular problem…

The last question of the evening came from Cranston resident Rhoda Northrup. She rose as Whitehouse tried to bring the discussion to an end, and would not allow the dinner to end without asking her question.

“I do not live in Burrillville I live in Cranston,” said Northrup, “and what’s going on in Burrillville should not be completely on their backs. This is a global issue for all of us and if that power plant comes to our state of Rhode Island, it will set us back forty years. We will be committed for another forty years to a fossil fuel.

“That’s wrong.

“We need to move forward with wind and solar. And with all of that said, I would like to ask the senator if he has an opinion. With everything that’s been said tonight, ‘Do you have an opinion?’

“I know it’s a process,” said Northrup, “but that’s not an answer. Everybody’s telling us it’s a process. We know that. We’re walking the process. But we’re asking our leaders if they have an opinion. You must have an opinion.”

There was a short pause before Whitehouse answered.

“My opinion is that we must get off fossil fuels,” said Whitehouse.

“Thank you for that,” said Northrup.

But Whitehouse was’t finished. Lest anyone believe that by that statement Whitehouse was taking a stance against the power plant in Burrillville and matching action to his words, Whitehouse switched to his familiar political talking points.

“My opinion is that the best way to do that,” continued Whitehouse, “is to balance the pricing of fossil fuels, so that they are treated fairly in the marketplace. Right now they have a huge, unfair advantage because they don’t have to pay for the cost of the harm that they cause…”

Posted on

Department of Health hears testimony on 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

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

Burrillville 45The Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDOH) held a public comment hearing in Burrillville Tuesday to solicit opinions on the potential health effects of building Invenergy‘s proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant. RIDOH has been tasked by the Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) to create a non-binding advisory opinion on potential public health concerns relating to the project, including but not limited to biological responses to power frequency, electric, and magnetic fields associated with the operation of the power plant, and the potential impacts on the quality of drinking water associated with the construction and operation of the plant. The final report is due in early September.

RIDOH has released a first draft of their report, which was consumed by Burrillville residents opposed to the plant. Much of the public comment centered around the idea that RIDOH wasn’t taking into account the compounded effects of the gas infrastructure in and around Burrillville but was instead concentrating on the proposed power plant by itself.

Perhaps the most dramatic moment of the evening came when Stephanie Sloman rose to give her testimony.

“I had a whole speech prepared,” said Sloman (see video #20 below), “but I noticed that Invenergy’s sitting over there, and I refuse to speak and read my speech in front of these people. I don’t think they should even be here, frankly.”

The evening’s meeting was made harder on residents of the town because at the same time as this meeting there was a meeting of the Harrisville Fire District and Water Board. This meant that some people (including me) had to run out to the other meeting and then return to the RIDOH hearing, still in progress.

Several Burrillville residents noted that Governor Gina Raimondo, during her visit to Burrillville in July, recommended that residents get involved in and trust the process. That seems awfully hard to do when two important meetings are scheduled at the same time .

Below is all the video from the event.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

Patreon

Posted on

Save The Bay wants Invenergy to prove consistency with Resilient RI


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Posted on

RIDEM issues blistering critique of Invenergy’s power plant application


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

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

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 002RIDEM’s third data request to Invenergy, released yesterday, reads as a devastating critique of the proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant. If Governor Gina Raimondo was serious when she recently told ecoRI News that, “…if there are issues then the plant won’t go forward,” then the project is dead on arrival.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raimondo

Patreon

Posted on

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


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

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

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

Kimberly Brissette Brown
Kimberly Brissette Brown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Invenergy made the promise, not Burrillville.

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

Patreon

Posted on

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


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

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
2016-05-26 Burrillville at the State House 021
Paul Fogarty addresses constituents at the State House

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

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

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

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

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

This bill is good for democratic process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Invenergy’s Niland pitches power plant at country club


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

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

John Niland, Invenergy’s director of development, gave a short presentation and answered eight questions at the Northern Rhode Island Chamber of Commerce’s Eggs & Issues Breakfast  Thursday morning. The questions were submitted in writing and carefully vetted before being read to Niland. The event was sponsored by the Clear River Energy Center, so there was little expectation of any kind of robust give and take. Held at the exclusive Kirkbrae Country Club, it wasn’t the venue for tough questions.

In attendance at this breakfast was Woonsocket Mayor Lisa Baldelli-Hunt, and state representatives Michael Marcello and Brian Newberry.

Niland has been Invenergy’s front man for a proposed fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant in Burrillville. His messaging is always very careful and measured. Still, over the course of his short talk, he did reveal some interesting nuggets of information.

DSC_1682The proposed power plant is dual fuel, so it can burn either gas or oil. Though gas is not a clean energy source, it is better than burning oil for the environment directly surrounding the plant. The circumstances under which oil will be burned, then, is of some importance. Niland said, “some people are saying we will be making an economic choice” as to which fuel to burn when. [In fact, I was the first to suggest this, back in January.]

Niland did not dispute this analysis, per se, but said instead that the last time oil and gas were at price parity was in 2014, and indicated that it would therefor not be a problem.

He seems to think that oil’s current price of around three and four times that of gas is a permanent condition, ignoring the possibility of the gas bubble bursting (as I pointed out here) or that oil will collapse in price due to competition from renewables.

Niland also said that entering the ISO Forward Capacity Auction “was a risk for [Invenergy].” As I pointed out here, Invenergy’s proposed plant’s performance in the Forward capacity Market demonstrates that the plant is not needed. The ISO, a market that determines future energy prices here in New England, bought some power from Invenergy, but all the power it bought is surplus.

DSC_1703
Lorraine Savard

Niland completely reverses this analysis. Committing to purchasing some of the power from the proposed plant, he says, is the ISO’s “way of saying,’we need this power.’”

Not quite.

As for the water that Invenergy hopes to draw from a MTBE contaminated well and clean before dumping it as wast water in the Clear River, Niland admits that his company can “probably” clean the water and that they are “currently working up a detailed design” for the water treatment. MTBE is responsible for the closing of wells in Burrillville and has been linked to a terrible cancer cluster.

During the question and answer period Niland seemed pleased that Rhode Island has an Energy Facility Siting Board. Many states lack such a board, and he seemed to like having to deal with a state level agency made to smooth the way for power plant projects.

As for noise levels for the standard operation of the plant, Niland called the 43 decibels currently on the books in Burrillville “somewhat restrictive” and said that his company will ask for a variance.

Some curious math was proposed by Niland, who said that the plant, if approved, will begin construction “around this time next year, (May 2017) and be completed in 30-36 months, opening in June 2019. Not to be a stickler, but that’s 25 months for construction. We know that rushing construction leads to problems, is that what we’re heading for here?

Patreon

Posted on

More confusion, not clarity, from the Burrillville Town Council


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DSC_1399
Town Councillor Kimberly Brissette-Brown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patreon

Posted on

Burrillville Town Council can stand up to Invenergy


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

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

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

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

That’s not what the law says.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democracy will have worked, supposedly.

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

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

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

Posted on

Public comment on Burrillville power plant: Video


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

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

Here’s the full video from the Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) public comment hearing held in the Burrillville High School auditorium last night. You can read the report and see pictures from the hearing here:

Further reading:

2016-03-31-Burrillville-EFSB-001-300x285

Patreon

Posted on

Labor, citizens clash over power plant in Burrillville


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

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

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 001For full video of all public commentary, see here.

It has been a long wait, but the people of Burrillville finally got their chance to speak out on the Clear River Energy Center (CREC), Invenergy’s proposed $700 million gas and oil burning electrical plant last night. The Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) held the first public comment hearing in the Burrillville High School auditorium, which holds 600 people. More than 100 people were outside, unable to get in. Hundreds of people signed up to speak, only 48 people got to do so.

The EFSB board is made up of Margaret Curran, chair of the RI Public Utilities Commission and Janet Coit, director of the Department of Environmental Management. The third seat on the board has recently been filled, since Parag Agrawal has been hired as the associate director of the Rhode Island Division of Planning. He begins his new job on April 18, so should be at the next EFSB hearing.

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 002Tensions were high in the auditorium. Michael Sabitoni, president of the Rhode Island Building and Construction Trades Council and over a hundred union members arrived early, and many Burrillville natives resented their presence. One speaker from Burrillville claimed that the union members were “intimidating.” A union speaker objected to this, calling the accusation of intimidation, “B.S.”

As near as I can tell, the eight speakers in favor of the power plant were all union members. They made their case based on the 300 construction and 24 permanent jobs that would be created. Sabitoni said that he’s run into meetings like this before, where a community shows up to complain about a large project to be built in their town. He dismissed the concerns of Burrillville citizens as NIMBYism.

Donna Woods was the first speaker, and she was set the tone for the evening. She said that there is a fear that the decision to approve the power plant has already been made, despite Curran and Coit’s insistence to the contrary. During Wood’s testimony, Curran broke protocol and addressed Wood directly, insisting that no decision has been made.

“Many of us feel that we’ve been screaming underwater,” said Woods, “This is real life stuff and we’re really afraid.”

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 021
Janet Coit and Margaret Curran

Residents of Burrillville and the surrounding communities are worried about the noise, air pollution, water pollution, the destruction of a pristine environment to make room for the power plant and their property values, which are already dropping. But many speakers spoke of the environmental dangers of fracking, about helping to prevent global warming and sea level rise, and about our greater duty to future generations.

Burrillville has experienced environmental disaster first hand. Well water was contaminated years ago with MBTE from a leaking gas station gas tank. MBTE causes cancer, and many in the auditorium last night have friends and relatives who suffered and died. Between the gas pipeline compressor stations, the Ocean State Power Plant and the MBTE disaster, many residents feel, in the words of one speaker, that, “Burrillville has given enough.”

Invenergy began the public comment hearing with a presentation. I wrote about this 30-60 minute long presentation and questioned the need for it here. Curran introduced the presentation saying it would last 20 minutes, but in fact it lasted longer, much closer to the originally estimated 30 minutes. After cutting the presentation short for time, Curran said that the full report was on the EFSB website, which is a point I made in my piece. An additional six members of the public could have spoken had Invenergy not been needlessly granted that time.

The frustration that the citizens of Burrillville feel about the proposed Invenergy power plant and the EFSB process is only expected to magnify over the next weeks and months. Frustration with their elected leaders in the Town Council, General Assembly and state wide offices is widespread and no one should be surprised if Burrillville seeks change in the upcoming elections.

The next public comment meeting is scheduled for 6pm, Monday, May 23.

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 022

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 003

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 004

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 005

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 006

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 007

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 008

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 009

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 010

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 011

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 012

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 013

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 014

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 015

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 016

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 017

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 018

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 019

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 020

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 024

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 025

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 026

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 027

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 029

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 030

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 031

Patreon

Posted on

Invenergy co-opts public comment hearing for infomercial


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

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

2015-12-05 FANG Arrests Spectra 014At an upcoming hearing concerning the new gas and oil power plant planned for Burrillville, Invenergy, the multi-billion dollar Chicago-based company behind the project, is to be given 30-60 minutes of public commentary time when ordinary citizens will be limited to merely five minutes each. This isn’t how Todd Bianco, coordinator of the Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) would put it, but the issue is raising deep concerns among citizens who plan on attending.

The public hearing, scheduled for 6 PM on March 31 at Burrillville High School, is the first opportunity for the public to speak out on the proposed power plant since the EFSB application process began. So far all hearings have taken place at the RI Public Utility Commission offices in Warwick and no public comment has been allowed. At the first EFSB meeting, Invenergy presented a PowerPoint that explained their plans for Burrillville, and made their case for the power plant.

original_imagesInvenergy then went on to hold two “open houses” in the Burrillville Middle School cafeteria, the first on Dec 1 of last year and the second on March 8, 2016. In addition, all of the documents submitted by Invenergy and others are available on the EFSB docket here.

Recently I learned that Bianco granted Invenergy a substantial portion of the upcoming public commentary EFSB meeting in Burrillville. Invenergy  has been given the opportunity to present what amounts to a one hour, pro-power plant infomercial before any public commentary will be heard. Meanwhile, each member of the public will be granted approximately 5 minutes to speak.

This isn’t the first time the public has had access to the EFSB approval process co-opted and blocked. At the beginning of the year several private citizens and environmental groups were blocked from legally intervening in the process. Also there has been a disturbing pattern emerging of anti-power plant protesters being denied access to public events where Governor Gina Raimondo is speaking.

According to Bianco, “At this point, it cannot be predicted how much time will be allotted to individual members of the public over the course of the public comment hearings… as that will depend on how many attend to provide comment.”

However, in an email to Paul A. Roselli, who represents the Burrillville Land Trust,  Bianco said, “I truly don’t know how much time will be given to each member of the public, but you might plan for no more than five minutes.”

Bianco went on to tell me that Invenergy’s presentation is required by law and is “for the benefit of members of the public, particularly for those who may have not made it to the preliminary hearing, which occurred during work hours, on a cold winter day, at a location outside of Burrillville.”

This is a weird defense. It was the EFSB that decided to have the preliminary meeting, “during work hours, on a cold winter day, at a location outside of Burrillville.” They could have scheduled the meeting in Burrillville at a time residents could be in attendance, and chose not to.

“Furthermore,” said Bianco, “Invenergy is not being ‘allowed 60 minutes to do a presentation,’ as you suggested. Invenergy’s brief overview of their project is mandated” by law. In a response to Roselli, Bianco said, “I expect Invenergy’s presentation will last between thirty minutes to an hour.”

Bianco cited R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-98-9.1(b), that states in part:

The [B]oard shall have at least one public hearing in each town or city affected prior to holding its own hearings and prior to taking final action on the application. All details of acceptance for filing in § 42-98-8(a)(1) – (a)(6) shall be presented at town or city hearings for public comment.

As Paul Roselli points out, however, there is nothing in the law that mandates an oral presentation from Invenergy. “If they are required to present their information at a public hearing,” said Roselli, “then they can present their testimony in written form.”

Mandating that Invenergy present their case at the hearing in written form in no way hinders Invenergy’s ability to be heard, if one follows Bianco’s logic. As Bianco says, “the Board also accepts written public comment electronically, by mail, and by hand delivery. Oral and written public comment are given the same weight required by the Act.” [emphasis mine] If this applies to the public, then surely it applies to Invenergy as well.

Roselli told me that there is much concern about Invenergy making a presentation and taking up valuable public comment time. “Many feel that [Invenergy] has already made their case” said Roselli, noting that he feels that Governor Gina Raimondo, and board members Janet Coit and Margaret Curran have already expressed their support for the project either intentionally or unintentionally.

In short, the EFSB is taking away precious public speaking time and giving it to Invenergy, a large and powerful company with a virtually unlimited amount of money with which to purchase advertising and curry favor with connected politicians.

The public interest is not being served by allowing Invenergy to swallow up their public speaking time.

“The Board expects that all those who provide comments will respect the process and each other’s time,” said Bianco in an email.

It would be far easier to respect a fair process: one that does not favor big money corporations over the rights of the public to be heard.

Patreon

Posted on

Recent power auction proves Burrillville power plant unneeded


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

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Southeast-New-England-Zone-9-Source-ISO-NE-for-web
SENE (SouthEast New England)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patreon

Posted on

Invenergy’s proposed power plant will burn oil


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not quite, say an ever increasing number of experts.

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

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

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

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

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

EIA-is-exaggerating-Fig3

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

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

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

Why the rush?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Burrillville power plant is ready to burn oil.

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

Patreon

Posted on

“Zero-emission” cars running on fracked gas


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coit is publicly on record with her support of methane:

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

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

Picture by Pia Ward
Picture by Pia Ward

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Fossil Free RI statement on Invenergy power plant hearing


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[From a press release]

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

Posted on

Invenergy fails to gag activists on power plant intervention


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

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

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

STENCIL: "RESPECT EXISTENCE OR EXPECT RESISTANCE"In a press release late last month Fossil Free Rhode Island cited as reasons for filing a motion for intervention with the Board:

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Occupy Providence, in its rebuttal,  said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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