Public Utilities Commission

October 12, 2016

New Hampshire joins Mass. in rejecting pipeline tariff

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

National Grid’s proposed pipeline tariff, now under an indefinite stay per the Public Utilities Commission here in Rhode Island, was rejected in New Hampshire last week. The controversial and complicated plan, which would make electricity ratepayers in New England financially responsible for the creation and profitability of a new fracked gas pipeline, involves multiple companies working together across multiple states. Here’s a description from the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission:

“Eversource is a public utility headquartered in Manchester, operating under the laws of the State of New Hampshire as an electric distribution company (EDC). Algonquin is an owner-operator of an interstate gas pipeline located in New England. Algonquin is owned by a parent company, Spectra Energy Corp (Spectra), a publicly-traded corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas. Algonquin has partnered with Eversource’s corporate parent, Eversource Energy, headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, and Hartford, Connecticut, and with National Grid, the parent company of EDC subsidiaries in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, to develop the Access Northeast pipeline. In general terms, Eversource Energy’s EDC subsidiaries in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire and National Grid’s EDC subsidiaries in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, are each individually seeking regulatory approval of gas capacity on the Access Northeast pipeline.”

When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled against National Grid’s pipeline tariff in Massachusetts, the Conservation Law Foundation brought a motion to dismiss the proposal here in Rhode Island. Instead, the PUC issued an indefinite stay in the proceedings, with the caveat that National Grid file a progress report on January 13, 2017.

Last week the New Hampshire PUC ruled against their state’s involvement in the plan, writing,

“The proposal before us would have Eversource purchase long-term gas pipeline capacity to be used by gas-fired electric generators, and include the net costs of its purchases and sales in its electric distribution rates. That proposal, however, goes against the overriding principle of restructuring, which is to harness the power of competitive markets to reduce costs to consumers by separating unregulated generation from fully regulated distribution. It would allow Eversource to reenter the generation market for an extended period, placing the risk of that decision on its customers. We cannot approve such an arrangement under existing laws. Accordingly, we dismiss Eversource’s petition.

“We acknowledge that the increased dependence on natural gas-fueled generation plants within the region and the constraints on gas capacity during peak periods of demand have resulted in electric price volatility. Eversource’s proposal is an interesting one, with the potential to reduce that volatility; but it is an approach that, in practice, would violate New Hampshire law following the restructuring of the electric industry. If the General Court believes EDCs should be allowed to make long-term commitments to purchase gas capacity and include the costs in distribution rates, the statutes can be amended to permit such activities.”

The Maine Public Utilities commission has voted in favor of the pipeline tariff.

October 5, 2016

In message to Rhode Island, Bill McKibben praises and undercuts Sheldon Whitehouse on climate change

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

“Five to ten years ago we thought the transition was going to be from coal, to natural gas as some sort of bridge fuel, onto renewables,” said 350.org’s Bill McKibben in a message to Rhode Island, “and now, sadly, we realize we can’t do that in good faith, because natural gas turns out not to work that way, as a bridge fuel.”

McKibben, a leading voice on the dangers of climate change, was speaking in a video message to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s annual Rhode Island Energy & Environmental Leaders Day” conference at the Rhode Island Convention Center last Friday.

McKibben started his eight minute message with praise for Whitehouse, calling him an “indefatigable leader,” along with Senator Bernie Sanders, around climate change issues. McKibben called Whitehouse’s Friday dialogues on the Senate floor against climate change and ExxonMobile “relentless” and “remarkable.”

“There are moments when I hope that his last name turns out to be a key to his and our future, but that’s for another day,” said McKibben.

But McKibben was also relentless in his condemnation of natural gas.

Natural gas, said McKibben, “turns out to be a dead end, not a bridge to the future but a kind of rickety pier built out into the lake of hydrocarbons. So we’ve got to make the transition to renewables now, and fast.

“We have to forget about bridges and make that leap.”

Earlier that day, during a question and answer session, Senator Whitehouse once again declined to speak out against the natural gas infrastructure projects currently threatening Rhode Island’s ability to meet carbon and greenhouse gas reduction goals. Greg Gerritt, of ProsperityforRI.com, confronted Whitehouse, saying that the “resistance,” those engaged in front line battles against fossil fuel infrastructure, was ultimately going to have a greater effect than the carbon tax that Whitehouse champions.

“People are saying no more fossil fuel pipelines, no more power plants, no more compressor stations, and they’re putting their bodies out there,” said Gerritt, “I want us to think about how the dark money plays out in a place like Rhode Island where you can talk about climate change, but you can’t actually stop anything.

“The politicians are all saying, ‘even though we know that if we build this we can’t ever meet our carbon goal, we still want to build a power plant.’ And I want to know what are we going to do so that on the ground, here in our own communities, that this power of the fossil fuel industry gets stopped.”

Whitehouse countered that his job in the Senate “is to try to solve this in a place where it will have the most powerful effect that it can, across the board. I will never win this fight, from where I sit, plant by plant. I just won’t, can’t. Too many of them, too much going on, and frankly there are hundreds of others that are being built while some are being protested, there are hundreds of other pipelines being used while one is being protested.

“It’s not effective, to, in my view, uh, it makes a difference, it sends a message, I don’t undercut what people are doing. I think what we did with Keystone helped send a big message, but my job, I think, is two things:

“One, fix that problem of the huge subsidy [for fossil fuel companies] because $700 billion a year or $200 billion a year sends such a powerful message through the entire economy,

“The second is, I see Meg Curran here, the chairman (sic) of the Public Utilities Commission, and we’re working with them, we’re working with FERC, we’re working with the ISO, we’re working with NEPOOL group, to try to make sure that the rules for these siting things, get adjusted. because the rules for these siting plans leave out the enormous cost of carbon.

“So for me, it’s these federal ground rules, to make them responsive to clean energy, to get them to reward the cleanness of clean energy, and to make fossil fuel pay its cost… that’s where I’m focused.”

However, if we are to heed McKibben’s video message, then Whitehouse’s focus seems like a small step, not the leap that McKibben says we need.

“The good news,” said McKibben, “is the distance we have to leap is shorter than we thought because the engineers have done such a good job with renewable technology. During the last ten years the price of solar panels dropped eighty percent. There’s not an economic statistic on our planet more important than that.

“What it means is that we now have a chance, an outside chance, of getting ahead of the physics of climate change. It would require a serious mobilization and a huge effort.”

McKibben has written about what such a mobilization would look like in the New Republic that is worth a read.

“I think we’re going to need real, powerful leadership in order to help us, as FDR helped us once upon a time to take those steps in the right direction.

“The question is not, ‘Are we going to do this?’ Everyone knows that 75 years from now we’ll power our planet with sun and wind,” said McKibben, “The question is ‘Are we going to do it in time to be able to slow down climate change?’ … It may be the most important question that humans have ever faced.

“I wrote the first book about it all back in 1989. The cheerful title of that book was The End of Nature. I fear that not much has happened since to make me want to change the title.

“We’re in a very deep hole,” said McKibben, “and the first rule of holes is to stop digging for coal, for oil or gas and start instead to take advantage of all that green power coming from above from the sun and the wind that we’ve been wasting for so long.”

October 3, 2016October 3, 2016

Invenergy power plant application faces suspension

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

The Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) today decided to issue an executive order demanding that Invenergy show cause as to why the docket for their proposed $700M fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant shouldn’t be suspended until such a time as the company can produce a reasonable plan for where the company intends to get the water needed to cool the plant. The show cause hearing has been scheduled for October 13.

The suggestion for the show cause motion came from EFSB board member Janet Coit, who noted the lack of a water plan and said that “from the perspective of the board, we have a big gap.” All meetings past the October 10 date have been canceled, and may or may not be re-scheduled depending on the outcome of the show cause hearing.

The meeting of the EFSB in Warwick also dealt with a short list of procedural motions. The Harrisville Fire District had entered a late motion to intervene, but were denied without prejudice. This motion gave attorney Richard Sinapi the opportunity to rise and speak to the board in favor of Harrisville, only to be told, for the second time, that there was no input allowed from attorneys or the public at this open meeting.

Two motions by Invenergy, to hold confidential some evidence from previous hearings, including the testimony of Ryan Hardy and Invenergy’s responses to the Office of Energy Resources second set of data requests, were approved.

The decision as to whether to change venues for the final hearings on the project was put on hold. Anticipating great public interest in the hearings, and noting that the hearing room at the Public Utilities Commission where the EFSB meets is small, the Town of Burrillville asked for a change to a larger venue.

Instead, the EFSB is exploring options to televise the proceedings on both cable access and the web. The EFSB’s Todd Bianco told me after the meeting that some effort will be made to archive the videos so that people could watch them if their schedules prevent them from watching live.

Board member Parag Agrawal said that “fairness and transparency” were the most important considerations, so broadcasting the hearings was important.

Invenergy has sold energy into a forward capacity market. Not building the plant or completing construction late could cost the company millions. The company initially asked that the application be fast tracked. Today’s decision by the EFSB essentially amounts to another extension, and ultimately could result in a suspension or even dismissal of the docket if no credible water supply can be found.

September 1, 2016September 1, 2016

Whitehouse not the climate champion Burrillville needs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Really good company,” agreed Whitehouse.

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

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

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

“I know the list,” said Whitehouse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“So I have confidence in the process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eagle Scout James Lawless with Whitehouse

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

“Oh yeah,” said Whitehouse.

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

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

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

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

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

“That’s wrong.

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

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

There was a short pause before Whitehouse answered.

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

“Thank you for that,” said Northrup.

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

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

August 30, 2016August 30, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The bill was approved, 8 to 4.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 14, 2016

CLF: Invenergy lied to public at EFSB hearing in Burrillville

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

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.”

October 21, 2015

PUC protesters repelled by bureaucratic disinterest

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

More than 30 people entered the RI Public Utilities Commission (PUC) yesterday to demand an end to the epidemic of unfair utility shut-offs. Many in attendance have been victims of these shut-offs, even though they complied with the law and produced letters from their doctors indicating that their health would be seriously compromised by shut-offs. The protest was lead by the George Wiley Center and culminated in an action where dozens of protesters entered PUC offices to deliver a letter to the PUC board.

No one from the board would consent to meet with the protesters. Instead, Kevin Lynch, who works for the PUC, fed the crowd bureaucratic folderol for 30 minutes. (Readers with a peculiar masochistic streak can watch the entirety of that interaction in the last video below.) Mind you, this was after making the protesters wait in the tiny receiving room/staircase for nearly ten minutes. Ultimately, the letter was time stamped by a clerk before being filed away unread by board members.

Those among the protesters with specific issues left with those issues unresolved.

Though Lynch was professional and polite, he did nothing to resolve any issues that anyone in the crowd brought up. At first Lynch tried to dismiss the protesters by saying that since the George Wiley Center and the Rhode Island Center for Justice was suing over the issue, he would not be able comment, but Camilo Viveiros, lead organizer of the George Wiley Center, countered that the George Wiley center was not a plaintiff in the suit.

According to a George Wiley Center press release, “Every year tens of thousands of households in Rhode Island experience the stress of utility service termination due to unaffordable bills. It is shocking that in many of these homes live people struggling with medical conditions. This injustice is due to a loophole that allows the state’s Division of Public Utilities to grant National Grid permission to shut off households, even when their medical status is on file.”

The Wiley Center says such shut-off are, “inhumane and a threat to public health and safety.”

“Stopping utility shut-offs on people with medical conditions has been recommended by medical professionals who seek to protect and improve health,” says the George Wiley Center, “With access to utility service patients can be warm or cool as needed, see and not stumble in the dark, refrigerate medications, use nebulizers and oxygen tanks, take a warm bath. When service is shut off, basic needs are not met and medical conditions will likely worsen, sometimes leading to hospitalization and other serious consequences.”

Alan Costa has a medical condition that literally stops his heart a hundred times a minute. Without electricity, he dies. He fell behind on his electrical bills while undergoing two complex medical procedures in a very short period of time. He wonders why Governor Gina Raimondo doesn’t use her executive power, as the person who nominates people to the PUC board, to push for enforcement of laws that protect the health and well being of Rhode Island citizens instead on the profits of National Grid.

Annabel Alexander is 77 years old and suffers from a long list of ailments. (She showed me the list!) She has had her heat and her electricity turned off, and sleeps in her overcoat in her bed at night. National Grid will not make a deal with her to catch up on her bills for less than 50 percent of her income. “It’s a damn shame,” she says, “that we have to suffer while they are up there getting paychecks and living in mansions!”

In the next two videos we meet Kevin, who survived the Station Night Club fire. He pulled people out of that building that night, but today suffers from post traumatic stress and other ailments. On Saturday night he ran out of oil. On Monday morning his electricity was turned off. He needs to keep his medication chilled. He was promised that his condition would prevent a shut-off.

“I feel I’m being punished now, for things that people called me a hero for.”

Kevin was invited into the offices to see if there was a possibility of resolving his issue. He left disappointed, his case still pending.

Diane has asked her daughter for help with her bills. National Grid wants to take more than half her paycheck to turn her power back on. She has a host of ailments, and told the crowd that people with arthritis need a hot shower, as opposed to washing yourself of in water you’ve heated up in your microwave…

Camilo Viveiros, lead organizer of the George Wiley Center, rallied the crowd and explained the costs of these utility shut-offs in terms of human misery, but also in terms of dollars wasted.

Here is the full letter the protesters attempted to deliver to the PUC board, and it was signed by a long list of health care professionals, including Dr. Michael Fine, MD, former RI State Director of Health.

I’m writing to express my support for the Lifeline Project’s work to improve protection from utility termination for medically vulnerable households in our State. Unaffordable utility bills are especially prevalent among low-income medically vulnerable households because these households lack the financial resources to make ends meet and often require utility service for ongoing treatment of chronic illness. As a medical professional, I see first-hand the way that termination of utility service can lead to disastrous consequences for families such as an unexpected trip to the emergency room, the loss of a housing voucher, or eviction. Households with a permanently disabled individual, or a person with a pre-existing, serious medical condition such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, or diabetes, are among the most at risk because these conditions require electric medical devices or refrigerated medication.

The Lifeline Project is a collaboration between the Rhode Island Center for Justice and the George Wiley Center, which aims to protect and expand the rights of medically vulnerable households facing gas and electric utility shut off through the provision of legal assistance and community organizing. The Lifeline Project has identified a host of routinized, unfair and illegal practices and procedures on the part of the public utility company, National Grid, and the state regulatory agencies, the Division of Public Utilities and the Public Utilities Commission with respect to residential utility termination. These practices need to be fixed and in the meantime, medically vulnerable households need protection from shut-off.

I am specifically writing to support the Lifeline Project’s current campaign to challenge these illegal practices and urge National Grid and the state regulatory agencies to meet the following demands:

1. A one-year moratorium on termination for all accounts that are coded as ‘medical’.

2. The engagement of an independent third party monitor to review the Division of Public Utility’s approval of petitions for permission to terminate for all accounts coded as medical. The monitor will be selected by a joint committee composed of members of the George Wiley Center, the medical community, the Department of Health and the Public Utilities Commission.

3. The Public Utilities Commission immediately begin requiring data submissions from National Grid that are consistent with those requirements placed on the company in Massachusetts, as per the George Wiley Center’s formal request from March of 2015.

4. The Public Utilities Commission immediately begin accepting and thoroughly reviewing petitions for emergency restoration and providing timely responses to each request.

As a medical professional in this state, I understand the dire need to protect these consumers from the dangerous impacts of utility shutoff.

April 24, 2015

The George Wiley Center wants to help you avoid utility shut-offs

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

“Thousands are getting shut off notices today,” said Camilo Viveiros, lead organizer of the George Wiley Center to the 22 people gathered around a table hoping to avoid losing power on May 1, “Over 20,000 people in Rhode Island have their power shut off every year.”

Viveiros and the the George Wiley Center want to prevent unnecessary shut-offs. He talked about the Henry Shelton Act, named for the Rhode Island anti-poverty activist who shepherded a bill through the General Assembly that allows for “more than 50% of utility bills” to be forgiven under certain circumstances.

According to a George Wiley Center handout, “Utility Consumers of Rhode Island have… rights under state law and the Rules and Regulations of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and Division of Public Utilities and Carriers (Division), which have the ‘jurisdiction to grant an exception to the provision of these regulations to any party for good cause shown.’”

If you’re behind on your utility bills, you have the right to “to both an informal hearing and a formal hearing before an impartial Division Hearing Officer. Utility shut-offs are prohibited until this hearing process is complete.” If a deal can not be made to your satisfaction, you have the “right to appeal the final Division hearing decision to Superior Court.”

You have the “right to an affordable payment plan. The Division has the authority to order payment terms which are less stringent than the applicable Residential Payment Plan.”

Further, if a customer is seriously ill, or if there is an infant in the home under the age of 24 months, you have the “right to protection” from a utility shut-off. “A lot of people with medical conditions get shut off in the summer time,” noted Viveiros, “A lot of Rhode Islanders would be shocked by that.”

It can pay to know your rights.

There is “the right for a ‘protected’ class of customers to maintain their gas and electric utility services during the Winter Moratorium from November 1st through April 15th. (Protected status for those who are disabled, LIHEAP recipients, seriously ill, unemployed, households with all over 62 years or children under 2 years.)”

You also have the “right to proper representation from the Consumer Unit of the Attorney General’s Office.”

We don’t have these rights, says Viveiros, “because some corporations decided to be nice to us. We had to fight for them.” Often, cautions a flier, “consumers calling the Division for help are turned away without being informed of their rights or about how to use the law.” Viveiros and the George Wiley Center are trying to fix that problem.

To that end the George Wiley Center has scheduled a series of trainings and will be happy to guide people through the sometimes difficult process of dealing with out of control utility bills. They’ve developed a 10 point plan of action:

Call the George Wiley Center to see if a member or volunteer is able to accompany you at the hearing. Also, ask supportive family members, friends, your elected officials, etc. to attend your hearing or offer letters of support.
Start making some kind of payment before your hearing, even a small amount. This will show a good faith effort when your payment history is discussed at the hearing.
Put together a “monthly budget”, the amount of your income minus all the bills that must be paid. Ex. Rent, food, medication, gas or oil, electricity, other utilities, etc. Have it written or typed out, and bring it with you to the hearing.
Prepare to tell your story, your special circumstances, including personal hardship such as unemployment, medical issues, children, divorce, etc. Let the Division hear what it is like to be you, to not have enough to afford your high payment plans for utilities that you can’t live without. Be prepared for the utility company representative to have a history of your payments, including missed and defaulted. Document all attempts you have made to request assistance, and if it they were denied, such as LIHEAP, Salvation Army, the Diocese, churches.
On the day of the hearing, arrive early to meet with your supporters beforehand.
Shut off cell phones and tuck them away during the hearing.
Share your story, monthly budget, and individual hardship circumstances with the Division. Tell them you want to pay the bills and what you can afford.
Do not make a deal at the hearing unless you really can afford the payments. Make sure the Hearing Officer tells you they have up to thirty days to make a decision on a payment plan.
Stay in contact with the George Wiley Center, update us as soon as you get the written response from the Division.
Attend meetings and actions to strengthen protections and improve policies that impact all RI utility consumers.

When people deal with utility companies unprepared, they will accept deals that only serve to plunge them into deeper debt. Noting that National Grid made $4 billion last year, Viveiros said, “We don’t need people to go home and feel depressed because they don’t have the money to give to people who are doing well.”

A woman told the story of having her electricity turned off. She learned that her gas stove required electricity to work, meaning she couldn’t cook. Her gas heat required electricity, meaning she had no heat. She ended up borrowing money from her children, running the risk of messing up her children’s finances. The woman felt shame, guilt and helplessness, simply because she fell behind on her bills.

No one is poor by choice. It is essential that we know our rights and come together as a community to compel large corporations to treat us with respect and dignity. “We’re trying to create a caring community,” says Viveiros, “where it isn’t all about the bills.”

Contact:

George Wiley Center, 32 East Ave, Pawtucket, RI 02860
cell: 401-338-1665 office: 401-728-5555

camilioviveiros@gmail.com