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.

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.

“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…”

As the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission considers a request from National Grid to have ratepayers help subsidize a controversial pipeline project, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled against such pipeline tariffs in a decision released Wednesday.

“This is an incredibly important and timely decision,’ said David Ismay,  the Conservation Law Foundation’s lead attorney on the case. ‘Today our highest court affirmed Massachusetts’ commitment to an open energy future by rejecting the Baker Administration’s attempt to subsidize to the dying fossil fuel industry. The course of our economy and our energy markets runs counter to the will of multi-billion dollar pipeline companies, and thanks to today’s decision, the government will no longer be able to unfairly and unlawfully tip the scales in their favor.”

The ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court may have an impact on National Grid‘s proposed “pipeline tariff” here in Rhode Island. The Massachusetts court deemed “it unlawful for Massachusetts to force residential electricity customers to subsidize the construction of private gas pipelines, requiring the companies themselves to shoulder the substantial risks of such projects rather than allowing that risk to be placed on hardworking families across the Commonwealth,” according the the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) who brought the case.

The CLF was the plaintiff in the Massachusetts case. The CLF maintained in their motion to intervene in the Rhode Island case that “an electricity distribution company” entering “into a contract for natural gas transportation capacity and storage services” and receiving “cost recovery for its gas contract from electricity ratepayers” is “something that has never occurred in the United States since the Federal Power Act was enacted in 1935, during President Roosevelt’s first term in office.”

Megan Herzog, one of the two lawyers representing the CLF before the RIPUC said in a phone call that the “pipeline is a bad deal for the whole region and that the Massachusetts court affirmed that.” Though the judge ruled on the case using Massachusetts law, there are statutes in Rhode Island that reflect similar principles.

According to Craig S. Altemose, a senior advisor forthe anti-LNG advocacy group 350 Mass for a Better Future, “It is unclear how much this will be a fatal blow to any of Spectra’s proposed projects, but we have absolutely undercut their financing (to the tune of $3 billion), called into question similar pipeline tax proposals in other states, [italics added] and have given Spectra’s investors greater reason for pause. Either way, we have unambiguously won a victory that the people’s money should be not used for private projects that further commit us to climate catastrophe.”

“Today’s decision reinforces what we already know: it’s not in the public interest to subsidize new fossil fuel infrastructure. It deals a serious blow to companies like Spectra who wanted to subsidize their risky projects with handouts from ratepayers. Communities facing an onslaught of fracked gas projects in their backyards like those in Burrillville have good reason to feel hopeful right now. We urge Governor [Gina] Raimondo and the Rhode Island PUC to follow the lead of Massachusetts and reject the pipeline tax,” Ben Weilerstein, Rhode Island community organizer with Toxics Action Center said.

Though the ruling in Massachusetts has no statutory value in Rhode Island, it may establish some lines of legal reasoning that will be helpful as the Rhode Island Public Utilities (RIPUC) Commission decides on Docket 4267, the Rhode Island part of National Grid’s ambitious plan to charge electrical ratepayers not only for pipeline infrastructure investments, but also to guarantee the company’s profits as they do so.

National Grid responded with the following statement: “This is a disappointing setback for the project, which is designed to help secure New England’s clean energy future, ensure the reliability of the electricity system, and most importantly, save customers more than $1 billion annually on their electricity bills.  We will explore our options for a potential path forward with Access Northeast and pursue a balanced portfolio of solutions to provide the clean, reliable, and secure energy our customers deserve. While natural gas remains a key component in helping to secure New England’s long-term energy future, the recently passed clean energy bill also presents a welcomed opportunity to support the development of large-scale clean energy, such as hydro and wind.”

Yesterday The RIPUC held a hearing on Docket 4627, asking National Grid to explain why it used such a “broad brush” in redacting information in its application. In the meeting announcement it was said that RIPUC Chair Margaret Curran thought “it is not intuitively clear how the information redacted falls within the exception to the Access to Public Records Act.” Much of what National Grid argues that much of what it wants to keep secret falls into the category of trade secrets, and releasing the information would put it at an unfair disadvantage with competitors, such as NextEra Energy Resources, LLC (NextEra).

As pointed out previously, National Grid will not release how much money ratepayers will be on the hook for if this idea is approved by the RIPUC.

Here’s full video of the hearing:

NextEra brought a separate motion to allow its lawyers access to highly confidential parts of National Grid’s application.

Here’s the full video of that hearing:

The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) released the following statement today in response to the favorable decision from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Conservation Law Foundation v. Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU):

‘This is an incredibly important and timely decision,’ said David Ismay, CLF’s lead attorney on the case. ‘Today our highest court affirmed Massachusetts’ commitment to an open energy future by rejecting the Baker Administration’s attempt to subsidize to the dying fossil fuel industry. The course of our economy and our energy markets runs counter to the will of multi-billion dollar pipeline companies, and thanks to today’s decision, the government will no longer be able to unfairly and unlawfully tip the scales in their favor.’

According to the opinion by Justice Cordy, DPU’s 2015 rule (“Order 15-37”) allowing Massachusetts electric customers to be charged for the construction of interstate gas pipelines is prohibited by the plain languages of statutes that have been the law of the land in Massachusetts for almost two decades.

In his opinion, Justice Cordy wrote, Order 15-37 is ‘invalid in light of the statutory language and purpose of G. L. c. 164, § 94A, as amended by the restructuring act, because, among other things, it would undermine the main objectives of the act and reexpose ratepayers to the types of financial risks from which the Legislature sought to protect them.’

National Grid is requesting that the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (RIPUC) approve a 20-year gas capacity contract” with Algonquin Gas Transmission Company LLC (Algonquin) for natural gas transportation capacity and storage services on Algonquin’s Access Northeast Project (ANE Project).”

The multinational energy conglomerate not only wants Rhode Island ratepayers to subsidize the construction of fracked gas infrastructure, they want consumers to ensure that the project is profitable for the company.

Part of National Grid’s 572 page application includes “a Capacity Cost Recovery Provision tariff, which allows the Company to recover all incremental costs associated with the ANE Agreement, as well as the Company’s proposed financial incentive.” Understand that when National Grid says “financial incentives” they are talking about company profits.

The logic that National Grid is using to claim the right to tariffs is that the RIPUC has allowed such charges when it comes to “long-term renewable electricity for retail customers from wholesale power providers.” [emphasis added] In other words, because the government has taken an interest in expanding renewable energy sources like wind and solar, and allowed tariffs to support these efforts, National Grid argues that it should be allowed similar considerations for fossil fuels such as fracked gas.

National Grid owns a 20 percent stake in the ANE Project, so Rhode Islanders will be ensuring that the company generates a profit as they buy fracked gas from themselves if the RIPUC approves this request.

A similar tariff stalled in the Massachusetts legislature, where the state Senate unanimously rejected the idea but the session ended before a House vote. The Massachusetts Supreme Court is deciding on the validity of the tariff, since the Massachusetts PUC approved the idea.

National Grid also asked that their request be approved “as expeditiously as possible,” meaning that they want the decision fast tracked. As a result, the public comment meeting held last night at the RIPUC offices in Warwick was the first and last opportunity for public comment, unless RIPUC commissioners Margaret Curran and Herbert DeSimone III decide to hold another public comment meeting. (The third member of the RIPUC board, Marion Gold, has recused herself.) Written comment can be sent to thomas.kogut@dpuc.ri.gov. Mention that you are commenting on Docket No. 4627.

The first speaker of the night, Doug Gablinske of The Energy Council of New England (TEC-RI), was also the only speaker in favor of the idea. Gablinske called the project “a novel approach” and said that “it’s good for ratepayers, for employees, for employers and for business.”

From there, things went downhill pretty quickly.

Calling the tariff an “unprecedented charge” Priscilla De La Cruz of the People’s Power and Light called on the RIPUC to reject National Grid’s request. “Why should consumers take on the risk of a new, unnecessary gas pipeline?” De La Cruz maintained that the entire idea conflicts with the goals of the 2014 Resilient Rhode Island Act. (You can read De La Cruz’s full testimony here.)

Lynn Clark came down from Burrillville, wearing her “No New Power Plant” tee shirt to argue against the proposal. She said that allowing National Grid to pass the costs of their LNG project onto consumers adds “insult to injury” to everyone living in her part of the state.

Other states did comprehensive studies before considering pipeline tariffs, said Nick Katkevich of the FANG Collective, who has been fighting pipeline projects in and around Rhode Island for three years. Massachusetts and Maine have both produced studies that concluded that pipeline tariffs are a bad idea, said Katkevich. “It’s shameful that National Grid wants to have guaranteed profits as part of this,” said Katkevich. “They don’t care about people. They don’t care about people’s utility rates… if they did they wouldn’t put guaranteed profits in there.”

“No one wants these pipelines,” said Katkevich, “across the region people are resisting the first of the three Spectra expansions… There have been 240 people arrested as part of direct action in New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts.”

If you have an opinion on this project, you can send it to Luly.massaro@puc.ri.gov. Mention that you are commenting on Docket No. 4627.

Below find all the testimony from the hearing.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Esten spoke in favor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Your time is up,” says Curran.

The crowd boos.

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

Roy Colombe is for the project.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Nobody!” says the crowd.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Below find all the testimony, in order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Labor, citizens clash over power plant in Burrillville

Further reading:

• Burrillville Town Council claims to be powerless against Spectra, Invenergy
• Burrillville Town Council argues with, disappoints residents on gas expansion project
• Power plant already adversely affecting Burrillville property values say realtors
• Burrillville state reps in the hot seat over Invenergy power plant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Full video of the EFSB hearing can be seen here
• Burrillville Town Council claims to be powerless against Spectra, Invenergy
• Burrillville Town Council argues with, disappoints residents on gas expansion project
• Power plant already adversely affecting Burrillville property values say realtors
• Burrillville state reps in the hot seat over Invenergy power plant