The Projo is, as a journalistic entity, free to make whatever statements it wants on any issue. The problem with the Projo’s editorial is that it is wrong on basic facts that all parties agree to. Quoth the Projo:

Gov. Gina Raimondo, thus, did the right thing by responding boldly to new evidence that bridges along that stretch are in perilous condition, putting the public’s safety at risk. She announced Wednesday that the state must repair these crumbling structures as quickly as possible.

In doing so, she had to pull the plug on an extravagant $595-million state Department of Transportation plan to cap the highway and knit back together neighborhoods that have been disconnected for decades with a new surface boulevard. That plan would have taken longer and cost more than simply fixing the bridges.

Three plans have been considered during the 6/10 Connector public process: rebuilding the highway as-is, rebuilding the highway with a cap over it at certain crossings, and a surface boulevard. The “rebuild with a cap” option, though better described as a highway plan, has been labeled by the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) as a “highway-boulevard hybrid.” Hence the confusion.

Everyone agrees that the surface boulevard would be the cheapest option of the three. That option, as outlined by community group Fix the 6/10, would cut down the amount of infrastructure spending needed to complete the project, while restoring the grid to drivers:

Rebuilding a highway in the 6/10 corridor, especially if it involves a cap, will cost at least $600 million, hundreds of millions more than a surface alternative. A surface option will cost taxpayers much less, making resources available for other projects throughout the state. Further, the ongoing maintenance costs of the highway option will burden our children with billions of dollars of maintenance and replacement costs. A surface road option will also unlock dozens of taxable acres for development, improving the region’s fiscal health.

In a Cranston public forum on the 6/10 Connector, Eco RI news documented that RIDOT officials intentionally spun the capped highway option as best, holding information that would favor the surface boulevard close to their chest unless specifically grilled on it:

RIDOT officials routinely downplayed instances where the boulevard option compared favorably to the capped-highway idea. At the meeting in Olneyville, it wasn’t until ecoRI News asked about the relative costs of the options — more than an hour into the meeting — that RIDOT revealed the boulevard option would cost taxpayers less. The difference remains undetermined, as RIDOT hasn’t calculated the cost of the boulevard option.

If the Projo had made such an error in a news article, it would be a problem. But for an editorial whose thesis is that the governor is making the tough decisions needed to save money, mistaking two of the three options on the table for one another, and then getting the costs of the options wrong calls for a full retraction.

~~~~

About a half hour before Tuesday evening’s Harrisville Fire District and Water Board meeting started, attorney Richard Sinapi was engaged in semi-private conversation with board chair Ronald Slocum and vice chair James Scotland Sr inside the meeting place. Sinapi was apparently selling Invenergy’s idea to open a new well in Harrisville to cool its power plant to the commissioners, essentially telling them that Harrisville would lose out on $10 million if they did not accept the deal.

I arrived at the meeting site about a half hour early. Outside was Burrillville resident Robert Woods. Woods is a recently appointed member of the Burrillville Planning Board. An outspoken critic of Invenergy’s $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant, he recently recused himself from planning board business concerning Invenergy out of “an abundance of caution.”

Woods told me he could see inside the building, where Harrisville attorney Richard Sinapi was talking to the chair and vice chair of the Harrisville Water Board. The door to the offices were locked but after knocking, Woods and I were let in. Attorney Sinapi, as seen in the video, was engaged in conversation with two members of the board.

“I don’t know what plan C is, it’s very secret,” said Sinapi, “All I know is that it’s a lot more expensive than the ten million dollars… So… It’s ten million dollars.”

“Gentlemen,” said Robert Woods, “it seems like this is a little out of order, no? The meeting hasn’t started…”

“I’m the attorney, the meeting hasn’t started,” said Sinapi, “and there’s no quorum.”

“I realize that but you shouldn’t…” began Woods, before Sinapi wheeled around on him.

“There’s no quorum, and the meeting hasn’t started yet,” snapped Sinapi, “and I’m the attorney.”

“I realize you’re the attorney,” said Woods, “you’re talking about that to members of the board, I don’t know, I’m not an attorney but it just seems a little out of order to me, that’s all.”

“You’re entitled to your opinion,” said Sinapi.

“That’s why I’m voicing it,” said Woods.

Fifteen minutes later, and about ten minutes before the start of the meeting, Sinapi took another commissioner into an office, where he could be seen speaking privately. What they were talking about is not known.

The laws governing open meetings are complex, but on the face of things, Sinapi seems to be correct. His advocacy on behalf of Invenergy’s proposal does not seem to have violated the Open Meetings Act. Certainly there was no quorum, but if Sinapi was having this conversation with multiple commissioners in small groups over time, it might constitute what is called a “rolling quorum.” But of course, I’m no lawyer.

There are, however, other considerations at play. Many Burrillville residents have told me that they feel that Sinapi should have recused himself, since he is not only the lawyer for Harrisville, he is also the lawyer for the New England Mechanical Contractors Association. In that capacity Sinapi has apparently advocated for Invenergy’s power plant at the State House.

In his capacity as Harrisville’s lawyer, should Sinapi have been advocating for Invenergy’s proposal to the water board? Sinapi says that there is no conflict of interest. I spoke to Sinapi by phone. He maintains that in his capacity speaking for the Mechanical Contractors Association at the State House, he was working to “defeat a bad bill that would be bad for business, not to support or oppose the power plant.”

In his capacity as attorney for Harrisville, Sinapi says his job is to protect the Harrisville water supply and the financial integrity of the water board. If “Invenergy brings water into town, through a pipeline,” said Sinapi, “it could render the Harrisville supply redundant. We provide half the water to Pascoag.”

While he had me on the phone, Sinapi wanted to correct me on two points. I listed the Harrisville Water Board vote against Invenergy’s proposal as 5-1 (and the ProJo reported it as 6-1) but Sinapi claims the vote was 5-2 in favor of turning Invenergy’s offer down.

Sinapi’s other objection to my piece was my contention that a lawyer for the Harrisville Water Board “should have known” more about MTBE than his testimony at the State House seemed to indicate. According to Sinapi, water containing up to 40 parts per million MTBE is acceptable for drinking. In Connecticut, up to 70 parts per million is acceptable. Though MTBE is dangerous, said Sinapi, “it’s not like Benzene or something.”

This from the second paragraph of the story ‘Bill would not end expansion’ on page A1 this morning (web version):

  And this is from the ProJo Editorial Board on June 18:

BVP was also used as an example in a June 9 editorial by the Providence Journal. A June 26 letter to the editor from former WPRO radio host Steve Kass, who also worked for Republican Don Carcieri, lauded and parroted the editorial’s focus on BVP.

The ProJo editorial board has a long history of using – and misusing – Blackstone Valley Prep to represent all charter schools in Rhode Island. Many Rhode Islanders, even some charter school supporters, think the Journal editorial writers are purposely deceiving their readers in an attempt to improve public perception of charter schools.

In the same editorial, the Providence Journal writes, “What sin did the academy commit, in the eyes of the legislature, that necessitated its loss of funds? It is not unionized. And it tried to focus its spending on serving the students rather than providing costly benefits to adults.”

Even the most ardent charter school supporters know there are more valid reasons than this to better regulate charter school expansion. Objectively, charter schools divert critical funding from the vast majority of public school students. The ProJo editorial board never mentions this more salient point. The all-white, conservative-leaning editorial board only seems to care about inner city students when charter schools are involved – and charters serve only 5 percent of overall public school students.

But don’t confuse that with a hyper focus on charter schools. The ProJo editorial board has had nothing to say on a recent scandal at BVP involving teachers sending disparaging emails about students. But when a teachers’ union official was found innocent of cyber-harassing a state legislator, the op-ed board still called for the official to be fired.

If the editorial board is banking on the fact that most readers don’t pay close enough attention to see the nuance behind its obstructive and often misleading editorials, it is committing a gross miscarriage of journalism. Thankfully, the news department seems to be fighting back.

John Niland, director of development for Invenergy, knowingly mislead both the public and the EFSB, the board tasked with deciding the fate of the Burrillville power plant proposal, at a public hearing on the matter, according to the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF).

The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) today filed two expert witness testimonies with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) that reveals Invenergy representatives knowingly presented false facts and figures at a public Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) hearing in Burrillville attended by 700 people.

The CLF testimony also provides further evidence that the electricity produced by a proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel burning power plant in Burrillville is not needed in New England.

Invenergy’s estimates of consumer savings from the proposed plant are grossly inflated and inaccurate, says the CLF. Invenergy claims the power plant will save between $118 to $120 million for ratepayers. The actual number, according to CLF’s witnesses, is between 0 and $36 million.

Christopher Stix, first witness

The first testimony is from Christopher Stix, a volunteer financial analyst for the CLF providing financial and market analysis for CLF’s energy initiatives, specifically in the area of power plant licensing and electric and gas transmission. The testimony is lengthy and technical (and can be downloaded at the link above) but the actual conclusions of the testimony are fairly easy to present.

False Facts

Stix claims in his testimony that Invenergy knowingly presented false information at the March 31, 2016 EFSB hearing at the Burrillville High School.

“…on March 31, in front of 700 people, Invenergy presented in two different ways… information that Invenergy knew, at the time, was false. First, the words “$280 million in Savings” appear in big, green letters on Slide 12 of Invenergy’s presentation… Second, the false information was emphasized by Invenergy’s John Niland, who said, “Talking about ratepayer savings, the analysis we’ve done looks at what happens to the cost of power to the region when you put in a plant like this. – – [T]hat’s really what the $280 million number represents.” [EFSB March 31, 2016 Hearing Transcript. page 16, lines 8-11; 15-17.)

“…eventually Invenergy backed off its wrong assertion of $180 – $120 million in capacity savings in just FCA-10. In Ryan Hardy’s April 22 testimony, page 13, lines 20-21, Invenergy touts ‘Capacity cost savings to Rhode Island ratepayers . . . to be $170 million from 2019 to 2022, or $42 million annually on average.’ It is important to note here that in his testimony, Mr. Hardy gives no specific figure at all for projected capacity savings from just FCA-10. Instead, he sticks with a vague average over a period of several years.

“Mr. Hardy does not acknowledge in his April 22 testimony that his figure had changed radically from his sworn testimony before the EFSB on January 12, 2016, when he stated under oath that ‘the savings from capacity costs alone is nearly 212 million…’” [January 12, 2016 Transcript. page 164, lines 6-14; and Slide 24.]

“Third, and importantly, nothing changed between March 31, when Invenergy publicly presented figures that were grossly wrong, and April 22, when Invenergy presented very different figures. The relevant FCA had occurred on February 8. Invenergy acquired no new information between March 31 and April 22. Thus, there was absolutely no reason for Invenergy to have presented inaccurate information to the EFSB and Burrillville residents on March 31.”

Power plant not needed

Early on, Stix was asked if the New England electricity grid needs the proposed Invenergy plant.

Stix replied, “neither the New England electricity grid, nor the ISO, needs Invenergy in order to keep the grid reliable. Overall, in FCA-lO, the ISO procured fully 1,416 MW more than its ICR. Even if you subtract all 485 MW of the CSO acquired by Invenergy, the ISO would have still over-procured 931MW. And, here in the SENE zone, the ISO procured 1,321 MW more than its LSR Again, even if you subtract all 485 MW of the CSO acquired by Invenergy, the ISO would still have over-procured 836 MW in the zone The result of FCA-10 shows that the generation capacity that the Invenergy plant would bring to the electricity grid is not needed in Rhode Island, and is not needed in New England.”

Inaccurate consumer savings

Stix testified that “[t]he irrefutable, bottom-line fact is that Mr. Hardy and [PA Consulting Group] wrongly predicted savings to Rhode Island ratepayers,just from capacity, and just from FCA-l0, to be between $118 and $120 million dollars. The actual figure was somewhere between zero and $36 million. Mr. Hardy’s projected figure was 272% of the actual figure, and maybe much, much more than that. To put it another way, it is just not true to say that a predicted result of $118 million in ratepayer savings in one year “is very close to” ratepayer savings of between zero and $36 million. I doubt very much if Rhode Island ratepayers consider $118 million in one-year savings to be “very close” to zero to $36 million. And I doubt that the PUC will view it that way, either.”

Robert Fagan, second witness

The second witness testimony presented by the CLF today is from Robert Fagan, a Principal Associate at Synapse Energy Economics, a research and consulting firm specializing in electricity industry regulation, planning and analysis.

Fagan also says the proposed power plant is not needed in both the short, medium and long terms. He says there is no “near-to-medium term reliability need for the proposed Invenergy plant,” pointing out that “existing and projected energy efficiency and behind-the-meter solar PV resources in New England more than supplant the energy output of the proposed plant and support a reliable electric sector in Rhode Island and New England without the proposed plant” and “there is no longer-term reliability need for the proposed plant.”

Fagan says that “Rhode Island and New England net loads… exhibit declining trends, contrary to the applicant’s assertions.” Invenergy claims that the ISO-New England Forward Capacity Markets indicate need, but as we have seen, they do not.

Further, Invenergy offers, “no evidence of any longer-term reliability or other need for the proposed plant. They incorrectly inflate the energy forecast need for Rhode Island and New England. Their narrative on alternative energy resources, including energy efficiency and renewable energy resources, is completely absent of any quantitative analysis of the effect of a portfolio of energy efficiency and renewable resource supply as an alternative to the proposed plant.

Looking to the longer term future of energy in Rhode Island, Fagan says, “When considering energy efficiency and alternative new resources including behind-the-meter solar PV, other solar PV (utility scale), onshore wind, offshore wind, Canadian hydro, demand response, and storage alternatives – in addition to existing capacity resources and a recently strengthened New England transmission system – near-term and long-term reliability of Rhode Island and New England electric power sectors can be assured without reliance on the proposed power plant.”

Fagan also says that, “The applicant’s failure to present any evidence of a long-term reliability need for the plant is significant, because absent such a need, I don’t see how this proposed plant fits with Rhode Island state energy policy that, according to the applicant, emphasizes increasing energy efficiency, integration of renewable energy into the system, and achieving reductions in greenhouse gases.”

I’ve annotated the editorial here. (Editor’s note: The Providence Journal changed the url on this editorial after it was annotated. Here is a new url. We will update this post again if the ProJo again changes the url. )

Click on the yellow highlighted phrases to find out what they really mean, or what the author should have written.

“Now that they own us there is no effort to invest in us,” said Journal reporter John Hill, who is the president of the Providence Newspaper Guild, said of Gatehouse Media, a media conglomerate that bought the ProJo two years ago and still has not agreed to a new contract with newsroom and other employees.

More than 100 people marched outside the Journal building during today, Hill said. “It was at lunch hour,” he said, “so people didn’t have to leave work. We’re not trying to disrupt anything. Nobody abandoned their desks.”

It was the latest in an increasingly public labor rift between the people who produce Rhode Island’s paper of record and the corporation that owns it. “Everything that goes on the website of value is made and put there by our people, and we get squat for that,” Hill said.

ProJo reporters and other staffers have been working without a contract since Gatehouse bought the business from Belo in 2014. Because it was an asset sale, Gatehouse “was able to void pretty much all the contracts, not just the union ones.”

They’ve been in on-going negotiations, but Hill says management is unwilling to bend. “These guys have a track record of being willing to outsource work,” he said.

The demonstration was the latest example of workers in Rhode Island standing up to an increasingly skewed economy that is squeezing more and more middle class people.

“Under Presidents Clinton and Bush the Department of Justice brought and won civil lawsuits against the tobacco industry for its coordinated, fraudulent campaign to sow doubt about the potential harms of its product,” Whitehouse told RI Future. “I have asked whether similar inquiries should be made into the climate denial scheme that is steadily being revealed.”

The URI professors’ union (AAUP) is holding an Earth Day round table discussion on Friday to continue revealing the facts, and delve into the opinions. The event is called “Climate Change Science in an Age of Misinformation.”

Whitehouse will be there, as will former New York Times science editor Cornelia Dean, Kenneth Kimmell, the president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, J. Timmonds Roberts, a Brown University professor of environmental studies and Lee McIntyre, a philosophy fellow at Boston University. The public is invited to attend.

But what is climate change denial? The Wall Street Journal and Providence Journal pieces make it seem like Whitehouse wants to punish people for simply disagreeing with his position on climate change. Hardly, said Erik Loomis, a URI history professor who helped organize the event.

“It’s corporate funded pseudo-scientific research that is intended to sow doubt in people’s minds about climate change so that the entrenched interests can continue to profit off of the current energy regime,” he said. “It’s disappointing but not surprising that newspapers owned by media conglomerates are defending this.”

Whitehouse also offered his perspective on why such newspapers are defending climate change denial.

“This drives the fossil fuel front groups crazy,” he said about holding Big Oil accountable in the same way Big Tobacco was held accountable. “So the Wall Street Journal and others are trying to saddle me with an argument I’m not making – because they don’t have a good response to the one I am making. It’s tough to convince people that the fossil fuel industry should be too big to sue, or that it deserves different rules than any other industry under the law, so instead the Journal repeatedly and falsely has accused me of seeking to punish anyone who rejects the scientific evidence of climate change.  That is disproved by the tobacco case itself, which is one reason they don’t much like talking about it.”

Whitehouse will speaking at lunchtime. Dean and Kimmell are leading a panel in the morning. Peter Nightingale, who was once arrested in Whitehouse’s office protesting the senator’s lack of action against a proposed methane power plant in Burrillville is speaking in the afternoon about climate change activism and environmental justice. Bill McKibben is leading off the day-long event with a video recorded specifically for URI.

Bernie Sanders has incredible support in Rhode Island, but one wouldn’t know it from reading the Journal. Has the Journal ever attempted to cover any of the many packed Bernie events throughout the state? Have they covered Sander’s message of justice anywhere near as much as they have covered the billionaire’s message of hate?

The Providence Journal should be more than a soundboard for the company that owns them, Gatehouse Media, and the conservative movement that it supports. Rhode Island is a state whose citizens are fiercely independent and the great majority has had enough with establishment politics and the status quo…

But Trump is not the answer.

The Journal owes it to the people of this state to be cognizant of the fact that Bernie Sanders campaign also is reaching out to people who are tired of  politics as usual. The campaign has attracted not only the millennials, but the disenfranchised: feminists, minorities, moderate Republicans, progressive Democrats, Greens, unaffiliated and many more. Sanders represents all those who are sick and tired of being marginalized while corporate interests take over. It is time that the Journal does its due diligence to make that known to their readers.

“I would agree it deserved more and the paper was GOP heavy,” Butler said, responding to a Nicholas Delmenico post alleging the ProJo isn’t offering fair and ample coverage to Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

“Though you must admit the GOP race has been much newsier – for better or for worse,” he added.

“Please note that Bernie Sanders’ caucus wins were mentioned in the second paragraph of the A1 Sunday AP roundup on the primaries,” Butler wrote in an email to RI Future. “Note that the lead story in the Monday paper was on the Clinton-Sanders debate.”

Butler, whose full email you can read here, said, “There is no blackout of the Dems.” Delmenico’s post does not allege a blackout of Democrats, but rather of Bernie Sanders.

Sanders supporters have grown more vocal recently about what they see as unfair treatment of their candidate from the so-called “mainstream media” a colloquialism for the large, influential and in most cases for-profit corporations that Americans rely on to become educated about their government.

Delmenico insinuated the Providence Journal has not adequately covered Bernie Sanders because it is owned by a corporation with ties to Wall Street.

Others have said too many media organizations include superdelegate campaign promises when comparing Hillary Clinton and Sanders delegate totals. Superdelegates are party insiders that get a vote in who the presidential nominee is. They are known to change their mind. In fact, they are known to change their mind against Hillary Clinton, who eight years ago held a similar superdelegate advantage over Barack Obama before many switched to support the eventual nominee.

Clinton has won 671 delegates to Sanders’ 476. But, according to the New York Times, Clinton also has 458 superdelegates who have said they will vote for her compared to 22 for Sanders.

The media blackout on U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders is real, and it’s happening with our home state newspaper. Please read further for the gruesome details.

On Saturday, March 5, 2016, Bernie Sanders defeated Hillary Clinton in Democratic caucuses by voting margins of 35% in Kansas and 14% in Nebraska. He also lost by a margin of 48% in the Louisiana primary.

In the Providence Sunday Journal, there is not ONE headline mentioning any of these facts nor one article dedicated to the Democratic presidential race. A review of today’s “A” section reveals the following articles related to the 2016 presidential race:

Page A1 (above the fold): “Cruz gains ground – Beats Trump handily in Kansas, Maine”

Page A1 (below the fold): “Trump taps into fears of changing America – A champion to the disgruntled white working class, a ‘monster’ to the GOP elite”

Page A7: “Trump primary win roils Mass. GOP – But Democrats have left their party, too, to back the maverick Republican”

Page A8: “Clinton backers pursue ‘gender gap'” – an article that discusses the gender gap in Trump’s supporters and how a Trump/Clinton general election could feature the largest gender gap ever in a presidential election, again pushing the narrative that Trump and Clinton will be the nominees.

Page A9: “GOP points to Obama tenure as cause of party’s schism” with the featured quote “There would be no Donald Trump without Barack Obama.” – Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Page A9: “5 states will shape 2016 race on weekend” – it mentions that “both parties had contests in Kansas and Louisiana … and Democrats in Nebraska also vote” but made no mention of the results. In fact, the article also mentions that these states “possess the power to make Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump closer to unstoppable.” The bias here is frightening, and this is from an AP article. The article also gives the “delegate count” for the Democrats without noting that the count includes as of yet unofficial counts of superdelegates, another misleading tactic.

And in the “Commentary” section…

Page A13: “Clinton backers split on Trump strategy” – you guessed it, an op-ed on how Hillary should take on Trump in the general election.

Page A13: “Republican ‘takers’ take down the establishment” – a GOP-focused op-ed

Page A14: “Romney’s warning” – an editorial from the Providence Journal Editorial Board, again focused on the GOP and coming out against Trump.

Page A14: “Letters to the Editor” – even the ones included here are anti-abortion, about Ben Carson, and about John Kasich.

To top it all off, on the Providence Journal’s Facebook page, they posted, on March 6 at 9:10 am, an AP article whose headline insinuates that both Cruz and Sanders’ wins yesterday were meaningless.

What is going on here?

I will be calling the Providence Journal to complain about the lack of coverage of the Democratic nomination process. I will ask two questions:

1. Why were the Democratic results not given any consideration?
2. Will the Journal commit to giving equal consideration to the Democratic and Republican races, and give equal consideration to the only two Democrats in the race?

I will also email David J. Butler, the Executive Editor & Senior VP of News for The Providence Journal directly as his email is listed on page A2: dbutler@providencejournal.com.

As I do not expect to get satisfactory answers to my questions, I am left to do what you must always do when something doesn’t pass the sniff test: follow the money.

The Providence Journal is “a subsidiary of GateHouse Media, Inc.” according to page A2. According to Wikipedia, GateHouse Media (which went through a planned bankruptcy and is now part of the holding company New Media Investment Group Inc) is owned by Fortress Investment Group. Also according to Wikipedia, Fortress “was founded as a private equity firm in 1998 by Wesley R. Edens, a former partner at BlackRock Financial Management, Inc.; Rob Kauffman (businessman), a managing director of UBS; and Randal A. Nardone, also a managing director of UBS. Fortress quickly expanded into hedge funds, real estate-related investments and debt securities, run by Michael Novogratz and Pete Briger, both former partners at Goldman Sachs.”

Big surprise.

Please, contact the Journal and put pressure on them to do right by the people it serves and give equal consideration to the presidential races and publish articles and op-eds from all points of view, not just those that match their owners’ views.

Please call the Journal. Please email. Please share this post. Please do anything so that the corrupt influence of “big media” does not infiltrate the biggest paper in our little state.

(Editor’s note: This was originally a Facebook post)