Jerry Elmer – RI Future

October 29, 2016

Burrillville residents refuse to drink tax treaty Kool-Aid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 24, 2016October 25, 2016

Burrillville Town Council about to have its Gaspee moment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be there.

October 13, 2016October 14, 2016

EFSB sentences Burrillville to 90 days of existential uncertainty

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

20161013_114807 — Pre-hearing lawyer chat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 19, 2016September 19, 2016

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

The 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.

September 13, 2016September 13, 2016

Burrillville files motion to dismiss Invenergy application

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 1, 2016September 1, 2016

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

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

“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…”

August 30, 2016August 30, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The bill was approved, 8 to 4.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 24, 2016August 26, 2016

‘Essentially our advisory opinion means nothing’

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

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

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

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

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

This is by intent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 22, 2016August 26, 2016

CLF moves to finish off pipeline tariff

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

In response to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision against National Grid’s plan to charge consumers to underwrite and guarantee profits for its proposed ANE pipeline, the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) has moved to close the Docket on a similar proposal here in Rhode Island.

Closing the docket would essentially end National Grid’s plan. According to the motion, National Grid provided testimony in the Massachusetts case claiming that “the fate of the ANE Project is dependent on approvals of full cost-recovery in other New England states—especially Massachusetts, which National Grid assumed would provide a substantial portion of the financing for the proposed project.”

As National Grid further states, “If there is any possibility of less than full cost recovery over the entire term of the contracts, the Proposed Agreement has a negative expected value for the Company’s investors…” National Grid wants to place the risks of this investment on ratepayers, not its investors.

The motion to dismiss, filed by CLF attorneys Jerry Elmer, Megan Herzog and Max Greene, supplies several reasons supporting the contention that Docket 4627 needs to be closed in light of the Massachusetts decision.

The first reason is that the project cannot proceed without Massachusetts. “Massachusetts was to receive the lion’s share—more than 43 percent—of the Access Northeast project’s gas capacity,” says the motion to dismiss, “In effect, Massachusetts’ non-participation cripples the project.”

Even if National Grid decides to proceed with the motion, by deciding to actually assume the financial risks, says the CLF, that isn’t the plan as proposed in Docket 4627. The scheme, says the CLF, “is so substantially altered by [the Massachusetts opinion] that the Petition, as filed, fails to represent fairly the costs and benefits of the ANE Project.”

Without the State of Massachusetts buying in, “The resulting proposition is an entirely new, and raw, deal for Rhode Island. In effect, National Grid is now asking Rhode Island ratepayers to subsidize a project that it alleges will benefit all of New England; yet a substantial share of New England ratepayers—including millions of ratepayers in Massachusetts—will be insulated from bearing a proportional share of the risks of this experimental and uncertain scheme.”

Also, even though the Massachusetts decision was based on Massachusetts state law and has no direct legal bearing on Rhode Island, “the reasoning underlying the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision… applies with equal force here.”

Rhode Island has laws similar to those in Massachusetts regarding “the core principles of electricity market restructuring,” says the CLF, and approving National Grid’s plan “would undermine the main objectives of the [restructuring] act and re-expose ratepayers to the types of financial risks from which the Legislature sought to protect them.”

August 18, 2016August 26, 2016

CLF to PUC: Burrillville plant not needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 27, 2016

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

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

2016-07-26 PUC Burrillville 3026 — Robert Fagan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can view the entire days proceedings below:

July 26, 2016July 26, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Niland ageed.

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

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

“I believe so,” said Niland.

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

2016-07-25 PUC Burrillville 3021 — Ryan Hardy

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

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

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

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

“Yes,” said Hardy.

“Were you wrong about that?”

“Yes.”

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

“Yes,” said Ryan.

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

2016-07-25 PUC Burrillville 3009 — Michael Sabitoni

June 27, 2016June 27, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Invenergy made the promise, not Burrillville.

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

June 8, 2016June 8, 2016

Burrillville Town Council opposes Keable/Fogarty power plant bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reaction from Burrillville residents has been negative and angry:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 28, 2016September 16, 2016

Video: House testimony on Keable’s power plant bill

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

The testimony on Cale Keable’s bill, H8240, which if passed will give voters in Burrillville the ability to approve or reject any tax treaty with potential power plants in their town, pitted town residents and environmental activists against business and labor concerns. In all 56 people testified on the bill during the five hours of testimony, 43 in favor and 13 in opposition.

Below is all the testimony, in order, separated by speaker.

01 Representative Cale Keable, who represents Burrillville, introduced the bill.

02 Jeremy Bailey, Burrillville resident

03 Lenette F. Boisselle, representing the Northern RI Chamber of Commerce, opposes the bill. Earlier in the day, Loiselle was at the Kirkbrae Country Club for the Northern RI Chamber of Commerce breakfest. At that event, all the questions for guest speaker John Niland, director of development for Invenergy, the company that wants to build the power plant in Burrillville, were submitted in writing. It was Boiselle who carefully sorted the questions, allowing Niland to only answer softball questions.

Boiselle took some tough questions regarding her opposition to the bill. The Chamber of Commerce, says Boiselle, “has a history of opposing any type of referendum… as a fundamental principle, the Chamber of Commerce believes that these types of issues are extremely complicated, that’s why we elect people to be in a position to be able to take the time to study the pros and the cons and determine whats in the best interest of whether it be the town or whether it be the state.”

Boiselle said that the Chamber has “no position on the power plant one way or another” and that if this bill is passed, whoever spends the most amount of money to advertise their positions will likely win.

The legislation, said Boiselle, in response to a question from Representative Michael Marcello, “could kill [a project] just by making it wait” until the next general election for the voters to decide.

Representative John Lombardi asked “what would be wrong with the town and the council having the last say in this. Is there a problem with that? You say you oppose that?”

Boiselle said that the time it takes to understand the pros and cons of complex issues is too great for voters. That’s why we elect representatives.

“I think its always good to engage the people,” said Lombardi.”It’s supposed to be a representative government, but sometimes it doesn’t end up that way. They don’t seak on the behalf of the people. I think this is a good process.”

“I’m just curious,” asked Representative Aaron Regunberg, “Money plays a big role in pretty much every election, do you think we shouldn’t have any elections?”

04 Jerry Elmer, senior attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation is strongly in favor of the bill.

05 Mike Ryan of National Grid opposes the bill, at least in part. They have no position on the part of the bill concerning voter approval of negotiated tax treaties.

06 Meg Kerr, of the Audubon Society, is for the bill.

07 Elizabeth Suever representing the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce opposes the bill. She seems to think that granting more democracy to Burrillville might make other municipalities want more democracy as well, which may slow down growth. Of course, Suever never uses the word democracy, because that would make her argument sound anti-American.

08 Paul Bolduc is a Burrillville resident.

09 Greg Mancini – Build RI

10 Paul Beaudette – Environmental Council of RI

11 Michael Sabitoni -Building Trades Council

12 Lynn Clark

13 Scott Duhamel – Building Trades

14 Peter Nightingale – Fossil Free RI

15 Roy Coulombe – Building Trades

16 Adam Lupino – Laborers of NE

17 Catherine

18 Paul McDonald – Providence Central Labor Council

19 Paul Lefebvre

20 George Nee AFL-CIO

21 Jan Luby

22 Richard Sinapi – NE Mechanical Contractors Association

24 Doug Gablinske Tech RI, The Energy Council

May 21, 2016May 21, 2016

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

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

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

You can read House Bill 8240 here.

Elmer’s analysis is worth reading in its entirety:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 19, 2016May 19, 2016

More confusion, not clarity, from the Burrillville Town Council

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Town Councillor Kimberly Brissette-Brown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 5, 2016May 5, 2016

Special Town Council meeting does little to calm Burrillvillian concerns

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

“I don’t [want to] throw cold water on your parade here,” said Burrillville Town Manager Michael Wood, “but you can’t simply just determine a tax at will and tax somebody… It’s not fair to leave you with the impression that this can be done when it can’t be done.”

Problem is, Wood is wrong.

Wood was speaking to around 150 Burrillville residents at a “Town Council Special Meeting” held to answer questions and concerns regarding Invenergy’s proposed $750 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning electrical plant.

Nick Katkevich, from the Fang Collective, had just read from aloud the relevant passage from the RI General Laws concerning Burrillville and energy plant taxation, as quoted in RI Future:

44-3-30 Burrillville – Property taxation of electricity generating facilities located in the town. – Notwithstanding any other provisions of the general laws to the contrary, the town council of the town of Burrillville is authorized to determine, by ordinance or resolution, an amount of taxes to be paid each year on account of real or personal property used in connection with any facility for the generation of electricity located in the town, notwithstanding the valuation of the property or the rate of tax.

Council president John Pacheco told Katkevich that the item wasn’t properly on the agenda.

Burrillville resident Kenneth Putnam Jr. then rose and asked a follow up question, which provoked Wood’s response.

This exchange was provoked by a piece I wrote, in which I consulted with lawyers on background. To check my logic, I wrote Jerry Elmer, a Senior Attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation for his opinion. Elmer is an expert in climate change and renewable energy law and has literally written many of the laws currently on the books in Rhode Island regarding energy and climate.

Elmer’s response to my query is worth quoting in its entirety:

The Rhode Island state law on this matter is clear and unambiguous, even if not everyone is familiar with the law. The Rhode Island statute I am referring to is R.I. General Laws § 44-3-30. That statute gives the Town of Burrillville (which, legally, would act through the Town Council) the right to set the real estate taxes for any electricity generation plant within the Town (including, but not limited to Invenergy) at any level the Town wants. Importantly, the level at which the Town taxes the energy plant (such as Invenergy) need not be sensible or reasonable. For example, the Town could legally charge Invenergy $1 per decade in property taxes. The Town could legally charge Invenergy $1 billion per week (or per day, or even per hour) in property taxes. One could have a reasonable argument as to whether any of those tax levels I just mentioned are sensible, or whether (or not) they represent good public policy. But under that statute (RIGL 44-3-30) they are legal.

“It is also important to note that the statute explicitly says that this is true notwithstanding any other state law to the contrary. Thus, even if someone could point to a different state law on municipal property taxation, the provisions of RIGL 44-3-30 would trump that other (possible) law. The statute also is true notwithstanding what tax rate the Town of Burrillville has on other properties (like local homes and businesses). The statute is also true notwithstanding the actual valuation of the Invenergy power plant.

“The short of it is that there is a specific, very detailed, state law that speaks to this exact question, and which trumps other state laws. By law, the Burrillville Town Council can set Invenergy’s property tax at any level it chooses; and, if the Town Council chooses, it has the legal authority to set that tax rate so high that Invenergy would pack its bags immediately and leave the Town forever.”

Earlier, Councillor David Place interrupted Katkevich, asking everyone present that even if the law as written and understood were true, “How long do you think it will be before that law is changed, if the Governor and the General Assembly want to pass the plant?”

Changing the law in the middle of negotiations to favor one party over another would be a pretty big move on the part of the Governor and the General Assembly, especially in the face of widening opposition to the plant and the rising unpopularity of our elected leaders. And the very idea of changing the law in that way is of dubious legality. But that’s a question for another day.

The “Town Council Special Meeting” was held in the Beckwith-Bruckshaw Memorial Lodge, a place with no microphones. From the beginning people in the back had difficulty hearing the proceedings. Only three Town Councillors, John Pacheco III, Stephen Rawson and David Place, attended. Town Planner Tom Kravitz gave a short presentation and answered many questions from those in attendance.

The general tenor of the meeting was one of distrust and exasperation. For instance, while the Town Council won’t reveal any details of tax deal negotiations with Invenergy, on Dan Yorke’s television show State of Mind, John Niland, Development Director for Invenergy and the company’s public face for the project floated the number $3.6 million a year in taxes and rising, over 20 years. This was more information than has ever been volunteered by the Burrillville Town Council.

The people of Burrillville have real concerns. Time and again Town Manager Wood says he “can’t discuss the particulars” of the pending deal with Invenergy, provoking those in attendance last night to reply that they “get all our information” from John Niland on Dan Yorke. In the video below, a resident points out that in her email exchange with Wood, the Town Manager didn’t seem to realize that her home was in the area determined to be affected by the power plant.

“How can we trust that you have our best interests at heart when clearly, I’m in a severely impacted area, and you’re saying I’m not?”

It gets worse.

Tiya Loiselle is a veteran whose home value has dropped nearly $50 thousand in value since January. She was hoping to build equity in her home, but instead she’s rapidly going underwater, because of the possibility of this plant coming to her town.

As much as the residents of Burrillville seem to distrust their Town Council, they distrust Governor Gina Raimondo more.

Governor Raimondo “has been on the wrong side of a lot of issues because she doesn’t listen to the people,” said one speaker.

“She doesn’t reply to your emails,” said another.

“Did she not say that she would meet” with us, asked a woman, who was answered by another woman with, “I followed up, and sent her a message asking ‘Are you still planning to come to Burrillville?’ and she said ‘You’ll have to talk to my advisory board.’”

“You can’t trust the Governor,” said the first woman, “You understand why you see Trump signs everywhere, because no one trusts the Governor any more.”

Perhaps no one at the meeting expressed the impotence, fear and anger felt by the people of Burrillville better than Deborah Krieg, a “mom from Burrillville”. Her short speech to the Town Council was heart breaking:

You can watch the entire Town Council meeting here:

May 2, 2016

Remembering my friend Dan Berrigan

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

My friend Dan Berrigan – Jesuit priest, poet, and peace activist – died yesterday, April 30, at age 94. April 30 was, of course, the anniversary of the end of the Vietnam war, a fact that had been much on my mind yesterday.

I first met Dan in September 1969, when he performed the christening of Peter Daniel Mayer, the new-born son of my friend Paul Mayer. (In fact, Peter Daniel was named for Dan, a close friend of Paul’s.) And the last time I saw Dan was in New York in January 2014 – at Paul Mayer’s memorial service: a sad symmetry. In between those times, Dan’s life and my life intertwined in a number of ways. Most obviously, we were both involved in draft-file destruction. But there were other ways, as well.

On January 12, 1971, a grand jury in Harrisburg, PA., handed up an indictment charging several people with a supposed conspiracy to kidnap then-National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger and blow up underground heating tunnels in Washington, DC. The indictment was big news at the time and appeared on the front page of the New York Times. The indictment listed Dan as an unindicted co-conspirator; and the bill of particulars specified that I was supposed to have recruited people for the supposed plot. (Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark represented the defendants, and the jury deadlocked 10-2 in favor of acquittal.)

In 1979, Dan and I did a speaking tour of college campuses together called “Power Plants and Weapons: The Nuclear Connection.” Dan talked about nuclear weapons and I discussed the link between power plants and proliferation of weapons-grade nuclear material. See here. Those of you who have been in my office may remember that there is a photo of me and Dan above my desk; that photo was taken during that tour.

Although Dan had been a public figure for close to 50 years, he was seriously misunderstood in at least two important ways.

First, many people did not realize that although Dan was certainly radical politically, he was theologically quite conservative. While Dan was an outspoken critic of much official U.S. foreign policy, he was not an outspoken critic of Catholic Church policy, theology, or doctrinal teachings. In the autumn of 1965, when his Jesuit superiors exiled Dan to South America in response to his early criticism of the Vietnam War, Dan meekly went to South America. Dan’s superiors had told Dan what to do, so he just did it.

The Catonsville Nine Action on May 17, 1968 – the action that solidified Dan’s public image as a political radical – is an interesting exemplar of the religiously traditional side of Dan. By no means all the draft board raids were carried out by religious Catholics. (For example, when I burglarized four draft boards in Providence in June 1970, it was with a group of young, Jewish, recent high school graduates from a predominately Jewish suburb of New York. When I burglarized six draft boards in Rochester in September 1970, it was with a group of mostly Quaker-leaning agnostics and atheists.) But the Catonsville Action, in which Dan participated, gave rise to the (incorrect) idea of draft board raids being part of what was widely referred to at the time as “the Catholic Left.” This was because the Catonsville group was entirely made up of observant Catholics, including three priests (Dan, his brother Phil, and Tom Melville), an ex-nun (Marj Melville), and a Christian Brother (David Darst). Their public statement – that explained why they had acted – said, “We are Catholic Christians who take the gospel of our faith seriously.”

And, most remarkably, fully five out of fifteen paragraphs of that same public statement were quotations from a (then-recent) papal encyclical.

By way of contrast, today it would be almost unthinkable for a group committing radical civil disobedience to explain their action by saying, in effect, “We are doing this because we are Catholics,” and then explain further by reciting lengthy portions of a papal encyclical! But that is exactly what happened at Catonsville.

In a sense, Dan really was an exemplar of a wider phenomenon – a religiously conservative Catholic whose traditional theology led him or her to radical politics. This is a fair description of much of the broader Catholic Worker movement, including Dorothy Day, Tom Cornell, and Jim Forest. Of course, if the mainstream Catholic Church operated in greater fidelity to the teachings of Jesus, it, too (like our friends at the Catholic Worker), would be more concerned with ending war and poverty than with opposing condoms and gay marriage.

The second way in which Dan was widely misunderstood is that it was he, not his younger brother Phil, that was often seen as the “leader” of the Catholic Left. This stands history on its head. It was Phil who “invented” draft board raids when he (and Tom Lewis, Dave Eberhardt, and Jim Mengel) poured blood on draft files in Baltimore on October 27, 1967. It was Phil who organized the Catonsville Action (which took place after Phil had been convicted of the Baltimore blood-pouring, but before his sentencing). Dan had been deeply reluctant to participate in Catonsville, but Phil had successfully cajoled him.

To its credit, the obituary in today’s New York Times (on line, not hard copy) gets both of these points mostly right. What the Times got wrong is this: “Many faulted him for not criticizing repressive Communist regimes.” In fact, the opposite is true; he had actually leveled unfounded criticism against the post-war government of Vietnam. Dan was a signer of the notorious public statements in 1977-1979 organized by Joan Baez and Jim Forest accusing Vietnam of widespread human rights violations – including holding hundreds of thousands of political prisoners. The charges were factually incorrect (and deeply divisive). Dan even signed Joan’s full-page ad in the Times on May 30, 1979. To his credit, Dan later tried to undo some of that damage by signing a more factually accurate and nuanced statement about post-war developments in Vietnam that Noam Chomsky, Dave McReynolds, and I organized.

There is a famous photo of Dan that was taken here in Providence on August 12, 1969, outside the Federal Building on Kennedy Plaza. The picture shows Dan in the custody of two of our local FBI agents, including Tom Lardner (left, in silly hat). Dan (and Phil) were supposed to have started serving their prison terms for the Catonsville Action in April 1969. Instead of surrendering, they went underground. Phil was arrested a few days later (hiding in the closet at a Manhattan church rectory). But Dan eluded capture for four months. During that time, he led the FBI on a merry chase, meeting with friends up and down the east coast, appearing in church pulpits to preach, speaking to a crowd of thousands at an anti-war colloquium on the Cornell campus, being interviewed on network television and by a New York Times reporter. Finally, Dan was arrested visiting his friend Bill Stringfellow on Block Island. The photo I am describing shows Dan on the mainland after his arrest on Block Island.

Almost exactly a year after Tom Lardner arrested Dan for destroying draft files in Catonsville, Tom arrested me for destroying draft files in Providence.

The second photo that appears in the New York Times obituary (on line) this morning is another famous photo. It shows Dan and Phil at Catonsville, match in hand, burning draft files. The same photo appears in my book on page 68. The difference is the cropping. The cropping in the Times is the familiar one, showing only the two celebrity priests. The cropping in my book is the original one, and includes a third priest, Tom Melville.

It is sad to think that Dan is now gone.

April 15, 2016May 3, 2016

Burrillville Town Council can stand up to Invenergy

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

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

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

That’s not what the law says.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democracy will have worked, supposedly.

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

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

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

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