“The Senator believes this is an issue that should be left for the state siting board and DEM to decide,” said Whitehouse spokesman Richard Davidson in an email to RI Future on Tuesday. “He feels his time is best spent fighting for national efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions.”

Davidson was reiterating remarks the senator said during a recent appearance on NBC10 News Conference that seemed to contradict an earlier WPRI report that Whitehouse “supports” the project. “I did not take a position, and I do not intend to take a position,” Whitehouse told NBC10’s Bill Rappleye.

“As a general proposition I’m opposed to fossil fuels,” Whitehouse said. “Nobody fights harder than I do in the Senate to try to knock down the fossil fuel industry, break it’s grip on the Senate and let us solve the problem of climate change.”

But he clearly doesn’t oppose the methane-fueled power plant proposal in his home state.

“To the extent all we are doing is taking out choke points that create artificially high prices for Rhode Islanders or creating potential spikes in electricity when there is very high demand that goes beyond way above regular prices, I’m not going to object to those things,” he told Rappleye. “I object more generally and categorically to having our dependence on fossil fuels.”

The proposal for a new fossil fuel power plant in Burrillville has pitted environmental activists, Burrillville residents and, more recently, local legislators against Governor Gina Raimondo and Invenergy, the company that wants to build and manage the facility. Raimondo and Invenergy promise lower energy prices while activists and locals say the project guarantees fossil fuel production for another three decades while diminishing the quality of life in bucolic Burrillville, a small rural town in northwestern Rhode Island.

Whitehouse was seen as an important bellwether on the proposal because of his ongoing efforts in Congress to call attention to the physical and economic dangers of climate change and continued reliance on fossil fuels. For more than two years, Whitehouse has delivered “Time To Wake Up” speeches on the senate floor that detail the dangers of climate change and dishonesty of the fossil fuel industry.

Local environmentalists were disappointed Whitehouse didn’t oppose the project. They were more disappointed that he told WPRI there was no push back from environmentalists. “From the larger environmental movement – the Save the Bays and the League of Conservation Voters and the Nature Conservancies and all that – there’s no blowback whatsoever. They understand the difference between the national and the local concern,” Whitehouse said, according to the WPRI report.

But a subsequent RI Future report showed Save The Bay and the League of Conservation have not taken positions on the proposed power plant. And the Environment Council of RI, of which the Nature Conservancy is a member, took issue with Whitehouse’s characterization of the political ramifications. “To be clear,” said the group in a news release. “ECRI strongly opposes the proposal to build a new, long-lived fossil-fuel plant in Rhode Island, because building this plant would make it impossible for the state to meet its short-, medium-, and long-term goals for carbon-emission reductions.”

Below is a transcript of Whitehouse’s remarks to Bill Rappleye and the full episode of NBC10 News Conference:

As a general proposition I’m opposed to fossil fuels. Nobody fights harder than I do in the Senate to try to knock down the fossil fuel industry, break it’s grip on the Senate and let us solve the problem of climate change.

What happened in this case is that there are two, I think, facilities and one of them bid into the auction and was selected so that’s going to be part of the process going forward. there’s another one that did not bid into the auction but may bid into later auctions or they may try to sell power somehow on the side and that goes into our grid and is part of the process…

I did not take a position, and i do not intend to take a position, in the siting decision that is made or in the auction. there really isn’t a role for a member of congress either in a siting decision which is a contested administrative matter where we really aren’t supposed to try to interfere or in the  capacity auction. so I’ve stayed out of that. I understand the point that we have these terrific spikes in energy prices and we have variances in energy prices particularly natural gas prices in the northeast versus other places where they pay way lower prices because of choke points in the system.

And to the extent all we are doing is taking out choke points that create artificially high prices for Rhode Islanders  or creating potential spikes in electricity when there is very high demand that goes beyond way above regular prices I’m not going to object to those things. I object more generally and categorically to having our dependence on fossil fuel and the way I’m best positioned to fight that is to fight every week every day in the senate to getting something done and I would say we are actually closer than we have ever been to making sure president’s clean power plant stays or getting a carbon fee that adjusts the whole market so the subsidies for fossil fuels are levelized and are no longer given that advantage.

You have to allow administrative procedures to take their course everybody has a chance to say their peace but for a senator or a congressman to try to but into a ongoing administrative proceeding is something that can create an ethics problem and is usually seen as an improper interference. people in that process are entitled to have that be a fair process that comes to its own decision without a senator leaning on it.”

That’s the opinion of the Environment Council of Rhode Island, a coalition of 62 different groups that protect the environment in the Ocean State.

“While ECRI has deep respect for Senator Whitehouse’s work in the U.S. Senate to address climate change,” the group said in a prepared statement sent widely to local media. “ECRI regrets that in his Jauary 22 interview Senator Whitehouse misrepresented the views of Rhode Island’s environmental community.”

In an interview with WPRI’s Ted Nesi, Whitehouse said the “larger environmental community” understands why he supports a methane gas-fueled power plant in Rhode Island, which he says would help lower energy prices in the Northeast.

“There’s a small group of people who would like to have me change my position,” Whitehouse told Nesi. “From the larger environmental movement – the Save the Bays and the League of Conservation Voters and the Nature Conservancies and all that – there’s no blowback whatsoever. They understand the difference between the national and the local concern.”

Said the Environment Council of Rhode Island today: “To be clear:  ECRI strongly opposes the proposal to build a new, long-lived fossil-fuel plant in Rhode Island, because building this plant would make it impossible for the state to meet its short-, medium-, and long-term goals for carbon-emission reductions.”

On September 14, ECRI, of which the Nature Conservancy is a member, took an official position on the Burrillville proposal:

Climate change is the most urgent problem facing Rhode Island and, indeed, the world. One of the major causes of climate change is the burning of fossil fuels, like coal, oil and natural gas, to make energy. In this context, the Environment Council of Rhode Island (ECRI) strongly opposes the proposal to build a new, long-lived natural gas fueled electricity generator in Burrillville. ECRI supports the quickest transition to clean, renewable energy and greater energy efficiency; this is not the time to be building new fossil fuel-fired power plants.

Steve Ahlquist reported subsequent to the WPRI interview that Save The Bay and the League of Conservation Voters had no position on the proposed methane power plant. He wrote, “Given that two of the three groups that Whitehouse named have no position on the project, and the third group, “the Nature Conservancies and all that” doesn’t specify any particular agency, it appears that Whitehouse’s answer was intended to minimize the importance of local opposition to the power plant, not honestly appraise the support for natural gas infrastructure expansion that exists in the wider environmental community.”

The proposed gas-fueled power plant in Burrillville has exposed a rift between local environmental activists and the elected Democrats they often support. Governor Gina Raimondo was an early and ardent supporter of the project. Whitehouse was more measured. In August, his office told WPRI he was “still reviewing the details of the proposed power plant.”

The proposed power plant opposition has been led by grassroots activists, some of whom associate with a group called FANG or Fighting Against Natural Gas.

As Rhode Island considers moving forward with several large scale natural gas projects, including an expanded pipeline in Burrillville, a new energy plant in Burrillville, and a liquefaction facility in South Providence, it seemed appropriate to ask representatives from business, labor, government and environmental groups for their comments on this report.

It is important to point out, says David Graves, media relations for National Grid, that, “this study has to do with the gathering of natural gas. That’s something National Grid is not involved in and is in no way associated with liquefaction, LNG or the operations of local natural gas distribution companies, which is what we are.” As of this writing National Grid is considering issuing a more comprehensive statement.

Of course, the larger issue is the global impact that fracked gas will have on the climate. (The local health impacts of having a liquefaction facility and LNG storage near a community is outside the scope of the Colorado State University study.) The question becomes, should Rhode Island be committing resources to an energy source that contributes to world destruction? Future generations are dependent on our making smart decisions today.

Governor Gina Raimondo’s office downplayed the impact of our energy choices on future generations, saying, “The Governor has always spoken about the importance of having a balanced energy mix. We have to meet the needs of the present, while looking to the future.

“In the present,” continues the Governor’s office’s statement, “we have a serious problem getting a sufficient supply of natural gas, and our soaring, unpredictable energy costs are a huge challenge for our businesses and our families. This new next generation clean energy facility will help us increase our supply of energy and bring down costs – and in doing so, will help make our state a more attractive place for businesses to operate.

“At the same time, the Governor has made it clear we are committed to doing this in a way that drives a cleaner, more reliable energy system in the long-term. We cannot lose sight of our focus on no-to-low carbon energy solutions, such as energy efficiency and renewables, including offshore wind and solar power. We are focused on enhancing system-wide energy diversity by harnessing clean energy solutions that offer new possibilities for economic growth and innovation. It is clear we can be a real leader for the rest of the country in this industry and create new jobs.”

Michael Sabitoni, president of the RI Building & Construction Trades Council, concurred with the Governor, saying that, “The members of the building trades are just as concerned as anyone else with the quality of life in Rhode Island and that certainly includes their care for the environment. We have supported numerous renewable projects that will provide clean energy to our members and to our state. However, we think even the most ardent environmentalists agree that renewables cannot meet all of our energy demands. Therefore, we support development of clean fossil fuel plants to meet these needs.  The proposed Burrillville plant will have the most advanced technology. This project will eventually replace old and outdated plants. In doing so it will not only meet our needs but minimize the concerns raised by the Colorado State report. Quite frankly, it is a project environmentalists should support.”

However, “ardent environmentalists” don’t seem to be on board with this alignment of industry, labor and government. Peter Nightingale, of Fossil Free Rhode Island, said that, “We have known since 2011 that ‘natural’ gas, methane, is not the bridge fuel that our national energy policy claims it to be. Both fracked and conventional gas have a larger global warming potential than coal or oil for any possible use.  Robert Howarth, who was one of Time‘s three People of the Year in 2011, summed it up perfectly: the Whitehouse (in suggesting natural gas a ‘bridge fuel’) made a decision that is not based on good science.  Today’s report is just the latest of many cracks in the nation’s meth bridge to Hell.”

Edit: After this posted David Graves of National Grid sent me the following statement:

“The Colorado State University report is not directly related to local distribution companies like National Grid. However, we take the issue of natural gas emissions very seriously. We have acted and are continuing to act where we can have the greatest impact. That is by limiting emissions within our system. National Grid has invested significantly in our 35,000 miles of natural gas mains which serve more than 3.5 million customers in Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New York, lowering overall emissions while the distribution network has grown. We invested more than $1.2 billion in our gas infrastructure this past fiscal year and, to further limit emissions, we will spend $6 billion over the next five years. In Rhode Island, where we purchased the business of New England Gas Company in 2006, we have replaced nearly 300 miles of leak prone pipe beginning with 11 miles in 2009 and adding significantly to those numbers each year. Our goal is to replace 60 miles this year and 65 miles in each of the coming years with a long-term goal of replacing all 1,400 miles of leak prone pipe.”

Fossil Free Rhode Island also suggested the following video: